2012 (10) TMI 847 - AT - Income Tax

Prior period expenses - CIT deleted the addition by admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A - revenue appeal - Held that - CIT(A) did not consider any additional evidence violating Rule 46A of the Rules as he impliedly followed the provisions of Rule 46A by sending the additional evidence, which was first time submitted by the assessee to the AO for verification and the issue was de novo restored to the file of the AO. In this situation, it cannot be held that CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee by allowing the claimed expenditure but he simply restored the issue to the file of the AO for a decision in accordance with the Act. Thus this appeal of revenue is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed - against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A) for AY 2007-08 related to commission payments.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) concerning commission payments. The main issue was the disallowance of prior period expenses claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses, initiating penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the documents supporting the expenses. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

The Revenue argued that the expenses claimed were not allowable as they related to a prior period and were rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer. They contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) accepted additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer, thus the order should be set aside. However, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not grant any relief to the assessee but simply referred the issue back for verification of additional evidence.

The Tribunal referred to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, which limits the production of new evidence before the appellate authority. It noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) did not violate Rule 46A as the additional evidence was sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) did not grant relief to the assessee but only directed a de novo decision by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as devoid of merits.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) to allow the appeal and refer the issue back for verification of additional evidence, in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal found no grounds to set aside the order and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.