9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1187 - AT - Income TaxTreating the revised return of income as invalid - disallowance u/s 68 considering the revised return of income - HELD THAT - There is no doubt regarding the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) by the AO in response to the revised return of income and made disallowance u/s 68 of the Act considering the revised return of income. While relying on revised return of income and reply therein in response to notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the AO completed the assessment in terms of the revised return of income, but, however, treating the same as invalid as reflected in para 8 of the assessment order, in our opinion is not justified. We, therefore, hold the revised return, based on which notice u/s 143(2) has been issued is valid return and since the assessee has disclosed cash as on 31.03.2015, no further addition of cash difference in original and revised return under section 68 of the Act is called for. Thus, ground raised by the assessee are allowed. Not considering the revised VAT returns reflecting increased in sales - We note that nothing was brought on record by the Department that the turnover as admitted in the sales tax return is incorrect and therefore, it establishes that the assessee correctly shown the sales and closing stock leading to cash on hand, which is directly matching with the cash deposits made into the bank account. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition is not justified. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of treating revised return of income as invalid. 2. Consideration of revised VAT returns reflecting increased sales. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of treating revised return of income as invalid The appellant filed two appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The primary issue raised in the appeals was the treatment of the revised return of income as invalid by the Assessing Officer. The appellant, through their advocate, argued that the revised return was filed after a survey and declared the same income as the original return. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer's addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was based on the revised return but treated it as invalid, which was unjustified. The appellant highlighted that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued in response to the revised return, indicating its validity. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence, held that the revised return, on which the notice under section 143(2) was issued, was valid. As the appellant disclosed the cash amount in both returns, no further addition under section 68 was warranted. Consequently, the grounds raised by the appellant were allowed, and the issue was decided in their favor. Issue 2: Consideration of revised VAT returns reflecting increased sales In the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17, the appellant challenged the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in not considering the revised VAT returns showing increased sales. The appellant originally declared their income but revised it after a survey, primarily adjusting sales and cash on hand figures. The Assessing Officer added a significant amount based on the difference in sales and closing stock between the original and revised returns. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition. The appellant, citing precedents from other ITAT orders, argued that the sales turnover reported in the sales tax return was accurate and matched the cash deposits in the bank account. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not dispute the turnover reported in the sales tax return, indicating the correctness of the sales and closing stock figures. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision to confirm the addition unjustified and allowed the grounds raised by the appellant. As a result, both appeals filed by the appellant were allowed, and the orders were pronounced in their favor on 23rd August 2024 at Chennai.
|
