9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Disallowance added by invoking provisions of section 44AD and 44AF - Held that:- AO has applied the provisions of section 44AD and 44AF of the Act in assessing assessee’s income of ₹ 40,81,308/- under totally misunderstanding of facts and law. The assessee’s total turnover is at ₹ 20,40,65,412/- and being a Limited Company, it’s accounts are audited as per provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and under the provisions of section 44AB. Even otherwise the AO could have resorted to another provision in case the assessee fails to produce the books of accounts. The provisions of section 44AD/44AF apply only to presumptive assessment, where the turnover is ₹ 40.00 lacs or less and not the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of assessee only without forwarding supporting evidences which were relied upon by the CIT(A) to rebut the same in the last week of December 2011, and passed the order in the month of March, 2012 . 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.l,56,67,294/- based on fresh evidence without giving opportunity to A.O. to refute the same, in contravention of Rule 46A of the LT. Act, 1961 . 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of reseller of iron and steel and also construction work. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings noticed from the P L account of the assessee that the assessee has credited an amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due to work contract tax of ₹ 18,22,140/-, service tax element of ₹ 17,19,693/-, sales to Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹ 1,09,41,765/- and also sales returned amounting to ₹ 11,82,896/-. The assessee filed complete reconciliation, which is reproduced in the CIT(A) s order and the same is again being reproduced as under:- Total receipts of ₹ 5,37,95,294/- highlighted on page 5 of the assessment order:- Name Amount 1. Aegis Logistic Ltd. ₹ 19,95,214/- 2. Sealord Containers Ltd. ₹ 3,95,55,531/- 3. Engineering Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 13,02,784/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s received from the AO by CIT(A), a final reminder was issued on 27/2/2012 to examine the issue and send the requisite report by 5/3/2012. In this requisition, it was clearly mentioned by the CIT(A) that in case the AO fails to submit the remand report, ex-parte decision on merits will be passed on the submissions of the assessee. No remand report was sent by the AO despite these three opportunities given to him and CIT(A) based on the reconciliations submitted by the assessee and other details deleted the addition. Aggrieved against the action of the CIT(A), Revenue came in second appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative only requested for setting aside of the issue to the file of the CIT(A) or the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee qua the reconciliation of other evidences, but the AO kept silent on three occasions i.e. covering almost six months i.e. upto 20/12/2011, till the date of passing of appellate order on 29/06/2012. Even now, before us, the Revenue s contention is only limited that for admitting additional evidences, the CIT(A) has contravened the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. We find that CIT(A) has given ample opportunities with specific directions to the AO, which were never complied by the AO due to reasons known to him only. It means that the Revenue was not at all interested in co-operating with the appellate proceedings. In terms of the above and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
