2015 (6) TMI 896 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus purchase expenses, software development & support expense and printing and stationary expenses - CIT(A) deleetd addition - Held that - The revenue authorities below has not properly considered submissions, details, explanation and other relevant documentary evidence and related bills and vouchers audited books of accounts of the assessee and the AO proceeded to make additions without bringing out any adverse material or facts against the assessee and without rejecting audited books of accounts of the assessee. At the same time, we also note that the CIT(A) granted relief for the assessee by passing a slip short and cryptic order by making only short deliberations on the issue of purchase and sales and without any conclusion on other two issues and therefore, orders of the authorities below suffers ambiguity, perversity and the same are not a sustainable. Under above noted facts and circumstances, we find a just and proper to restore the assessment to the file of Assessing Officer for framing a fresh assessment, after affording few opportunity of hearing for assessee and without being prejudiced from the earlier assessment order and impugned order. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding deletion of addition on account of purchase and other expenses for AY 2009-10.

Analysis:

1. Grounds Raised by Revenue:
The revenue raised concerns regarding the deletion of an addition of a specific amount on account of purchase and other expenses. The assessing officer disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee as bogus, leading to a revised total income assessment. The revenue challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting this addition.

2. Assessee's Position:
The assessee contended that the purchases made were essential for conducting sales, and the assessing officer's disallowance was unjustified. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, emphasizing that no sales could occur without corresponding purchases. Moreover, the assessee highlighted that the assessing officer did not follow proper procedures in declaring the expenses as bogus.

3. Arguments by Both Parties:
The Departmental Representative (DR) cited legal precedent to support the position that unexplained credits in the books of accounts could be treated as income. The assessee's counsel countered by asserting that the purchases were genuine and necessary for the business. The DR criticized the CIT(A) for not providing detailed reasoning for deleting the additions, indicating a lack of proper adjudication.

4. Judicial Findings:
Upon review, the tribunal observed that the assessing officer's conclusions lacked detailed analysis and failed to establish defects in the assessee's records. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessing officer's approach and the lack of thorough examination of the documents provided by the assessee. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order lacking in-depth discussion on all issues, leading to ambiguity and a lack of justification for the deletion of additions.

5. Final Decision:
Considering the inadequacies in the assessments by the revenue authorities and the vague reasoning in the CIT(A)'s order, the tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive review, proper consideration of submissions and evidence, and a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a more thorough and justified assessment process.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of a detailed and fair assessment process, ensuring that all relevant evidence and submissions are properly considered before making additions to the income of the assessee.