9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igher forum or authority. We are unable to appreciate manner and approach of the ld. CIT(A) in which he granted relief to the assessee deleted the ex parte and ad hoc additions made by the AO. Under above noted facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Revenue authorities were not justified in making ex parte ad hoc additions and also deleting the same without detailed and separate adjudication as per provisions of the Act. In this situation we are of the considered opinion that all five issues as mentioned and raised by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) require de novo adjudication at the end of AO. Thus, we restore the same to the file of the AO for proper adjudication after affording due opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses, iv) addition of ₹ 2,66,465/- being unexplained credit in the name of M/s Graphic Concepts and v) disallowance of ₹ 6,07,100/- being unexplained expenditure. 3. Apropos these grounds, we have heard both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by admitting additional evidences during the appellate proceedings inspite of several opportunities provided by the AO to the assessee to produce relevant explanation and evidence during the assessment proceedings and also during the remand proceedings. 4. The ld. DR further contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by not adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings then also the ld. CIT(A) was duty bound to afford opportunity to verify/examine and comment on the details, evidence and explanation of the assessee filed as additional evidence under rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962. 9. Replying to the above the ld. AR vehemently contended that the assessee was prevented to file relevant explanation, evidence and details before the AO during the assessment proceedings and therefore, the same was submitted before the ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 which was rightly admitting and considered by the first appellate authority. 10. The ld. AR vehemently contended that the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in granting relief for the assessee as the assessee was able to sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence and explanation and considered the same for granting relief to the assessee. 14. From operative part of the impugned order, we observed that the ld. CIT(A) granted relief for the assessee with following observations and conclusion: 6.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order, remand report of the AO and the submission made by the ld. AR out of the total repair and maintenance expenditure claimed at ₹ 32,38,023/-, the AO has disallowed ₹ 11,74,314/- on exparte basis by taking pro rata turnover as compared to the turnover of the last year. The AO has also disallowed the entire expenses of ₹ 39,83,428/- and ₹ 29,29,334/- claimed by the appellant under the head freight forwarding expenses; and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, the appellant has produced voluminous details during appellate proceeding consisting of the audited statement of accounts, tax audit reports, copy of replies filed before the AO giving details and documents, complete details of expenses including copies of ledger accounts, bills vouchers, comparative chart of year wise expenses, details of the parties alongwith copies of their accounts, details of TDS deducted and acknowledgement of TDS returns filed, confirmation of accounts from sundry creditors and the party to whom cash payment was made as well as source of the same as per cash book etc. All the above details and documents had been forwarded to the AO for examination during the remand proceeding. However, the AO in his remand rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the considered opinion that all five issues as mentioned and raised by the assessee as ground no. 4 to 8 before ld. CIT(A) require de novo adjudication at the end of AO. Thus, we restore the same to the file of the AO for proper adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee and without being prejudiced and influenced by the earlier assessment and impugned order. Since the case is restored for limited purpose only on five counts as stated above, accordingly, ground no. 2 3 of the Revenue are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24 /02/2015. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
