9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 149 - AT - Income TaxDemand of difference amount of Transportation Income as per the ledger account and P&L account as the income of the assessee - Held that - Assessing Officer considered the difference amount of Transportation Income as per the ledger account and P&L account as the income of the assessee. Further, before the ld. CIT(A), there was non-compliance of the notices and therefore, CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the ld. AR has assured that if the matter is remitted before the CIT(A), the assessee would be represented to present its case. Considering the submission of ld. AR, we are of the view that in the present case, in the interest of justice and fairness, the assessee is granted one more opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A). We, therefore, remit the issue to the file of CIT(A) for him to decide the issue de-novo on merits. We also direct the ld. AR to appear suo-moto before the CIT(A) within 30 days of the order and furnish all the required details called for by the CIT(A). In case of failure on the part of the assessee in submitting the necessary details, the CIT(A) shall be free to decide the issue on the basis of material on record - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Addition of &8377; 50,93,103 as income discrepancy. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot involved a challenge by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot for the assessment year 2004-05. The primary issue revolved around the addition of &8377; 50,93,103 as income discrepancy. The assessee, engaged in the business of Transport Contractor and supplier of raw material for cement manufacturing, initially declared a total income of &8377; 4,67,940. Subsequently, the assessment was revised under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, resulting in a total income of &8377; 56,18,740. The Assessing Officer noted a discrepancy in the transportation income reported by the assessee and the amount reflected in the ledger account, leading to the addition of &8377; 50,93,103 as income. The assessee contested this addition before the CIT(A) but due to non-compliance and absence during proceedings, the CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. The Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions of the parties and observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal acknowledged the request by the assessee's representative for another opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A) to ensure a fair hearing. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee's representative to appear before the CIT(A) within 30 days and provide all necessary details. Failure to comply would empower the CIT(A) to decide based on existing records. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes, granting the appeal solely on procedural grounds. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of income discrepancy back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of providing the necessary details for a fair adjudication.
|
