9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) has admitted certain evidences which were in violation of Rule 46A since these details were never filed before the AO - the details ought to have been filed before the AO – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO – Decided in favour of Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 7084/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2014 - Shri H. L. Karwa And Shri N. K. Billaiya, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R. K. Sahu For the Respondent : Shri Vishwas H. Mehendale ORDER Per N. K. Billaiya, A. M. This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of ld. CIT(A)-34, Mumbai dated 11.09.2012 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. The Revenue has raised following substantive grounds of appeal: i) On the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the provisional set of final accounts was irrelevant and only the audited statement of account should be considered. The AO dismissed this submission of the assessee. The AO was of belief that the assessee has failed to explain the difference in the two statements. The AO proceeded to make the addition of Rs.7,84,840/- on account of the following differences found in the two sets of final accounts: a) Difference in income Rs.1,32,740/- b) Difference in major expenses Rs.3,48,550/- c) Difference in sundry creditors Rs.3,03,550/- Total Rs.7,84,840/- 3. The assessee carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of account. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 6. Ground no. 2 relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs.88,000/- on account of difference in balance of creditors and ground no. 3 relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs.18,71,655/- on account of difference in purchase and sales. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that credit balance of M/s. D. C. Infotech in the books of the assessee was at Rs.1,19,300/-. However, in reply to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, M/s. D. C. Infotech confirmed a balance of Rs.31,300/- only. The AO added back Rs.88,000/- as income of the assessee. The AO further noticed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re in violation of Rule 46A since these details were never filed before the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the details were not filed before the AO. 8. After carefully perusing the orders of the lower authorities and the submissions made by the rival parties, in our considered view these details ought to have been filed before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore these issues back to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to file necessary details/reconciliation before the AO. The AO is directed to examine and verify the details/reconciliation and decide these issues afresh after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground nos. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
