9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1028 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 40A(3)- main reason for addition made by the AO is because the Authorized Representative has agreed for addition before the Assessing Officer - tribunal committed an error in passing the order - Held that - The tribunal gave a specific finding in the order as find in this case, the assessee has paid more than ₹ 20,000/- in a day and obtained the receipt only for ₹ 19,000/-. This fact is admitted before the A.O. It is a clear violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) without considering section 40A(3) of the Act, simply deleted the addition made by the A.O. Thus find the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above finding given by the Tribunal, we find no error apparent on the face of the order passed. Thus, this Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
Recalling of tribunal order in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013 based on disagreement of Authorized Representative for addition under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The applicant filed a Misc. Application seeking the recalling of the tribunal's order in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013, contending that the order was based on incorrect facts not on record. The Authorized Representative did not agree to the addition made under section 40A(3) before the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) did not address this issue, and the tribunal did not consider it during the appeal. The main reason for the addition by the Assessing Officer was the agreement by the Authorized Representative, which was not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). The tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's order due to the violation of section 40A(3) by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Misc. Application. The tribunal found no apparent error in its previous order as the Authorized Representative's agreement for the addition was a crucial factor. The tribunal cited the violation of section 40A(3) by the assessee, leading to the reversal of the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The tribunal's specific finding in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013 highlighted the violation and the failure to consider this violation by the ld. CIT(A), resulting in the upholding of the Assessing Officer's order. The Departmental Representative strongly opposed the recalling of the tribunal's order, emphasizing the importance of the Authorized Representative's agreement for the addition under section 40A(3). The tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, reviewed the available material and the previous order, and concluded that the Misc. Application lacked merit due to the crucial role of the Authorized Representative's agreement in the addition under section 40A(3). In summary, the tribunal dismissed the Misc. Application seeking the recalling of the order in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013 based on the disagreement of the Authorized Representative for the addition under section 40A(3). The tribunal's decision was upheld due to the violation of section 40A(3) by the assessee and the failure to address this violation by the ld. CIT(A), leading to the rejection of the application.
|
