9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO by disallowing the expenses, which are not supported by evidences. For this, Revenue has raised ground regarding not allowing sufficient opportunity by the CIT(A) to the AO and admitting additional evidences in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short 'the Rules). For this the Revenue has raised following two Grounds:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 1,56,67,294/ - based on fresh evidence without appreciating the fact that the A.O. was not given sufficient opportunity; CIT(A) forwarded to the A.O. the submissions of assessee only without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/-, as against the actual receipt of Rs. 5,37,95,294/-. According to AO, there is difference in receipt of labour charges i.e. short declaration of labour receipts, the AO treated the same as unexplained and added to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee submitted a reconciliation statement and stated that the difference of Rs. 1,56,67,294/- is taken due to misunderstanding of facts by the AO due to work contract tax of Rs. 18,22,140/-, service tax element of Rs. 17,19,693/-, sales to Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,09,41,765/- and also sales returned amounting to Rs. 11,82,896/-. The assessee filed complete reconciliation, which is reproduced in the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 AO f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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) has deleted this add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
