9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neness of the transaction. Also it has been laid down by the CBDT in its Instruction No. 5/2013 dated 08.07.2013 that the AO may also, if deemed necessary, issue a notice to the deductor to compel him to file correction statement as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to make an order afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. - Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 6823/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2019 - Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of additional evidence which could not be submitted as assessment proceedings were getting time barred. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13 on 27.07.2013 declaring total income of ₹ 23,464/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that in the P L account the assessee has shown revenue of ₹ 5,24,78,250/- from operations and other income of ₹ 2,20,282/- totalling to ₹ 5,26,98,532/-. However, the AO noticed from the AIR information that the assessee had received total amount of ₹ 7,18,68,796/-. In response to a query raised by the AO, the assessee filed a reconciliation statement which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding cumulative period. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed any application under Rule 46A as to why these documents should be accepted at that stage. He held that even otherwise, the assessee who is into the business with these parties has also failed to file their confirmation of accounts to prove his case. As the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus by filing correction statement or detailed confirmation from the concerned parties, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,44,75,355/- made by the AO. Regarding the addition of ₹ 30,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act, the assessee filed before the Ld. CIT(A) ledger copies of FDR and bank statements. These additional evidences filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.07.2013, the decision in Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. UoI (2014) 46 taxmann.com 447 (All) and P.K. Rajasekar v. ITO (2016) 74 taxmann.com 151 (Chennai-Trib). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that as the assessee failed to file the documents/evidence in support of its case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 1,44,75,355/- made by the AO on account of mismatch of AIR information and books of accounts. It is stated by him that as the TDS has been claimed by the assessee, as a natural corollary, the assessee is bound to show the corresponding income. Therefore, the Ld. DR submits that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. In respect of the addition of ₹ 30,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handicap of the assessee and say that there was undisclosed receipt by the assessee. When the assessee claims that the entry as on 01.07.2010 is a wrong entry, the Assessing Officer in all fairness has to examine the same and find out whether there was genuine entry or not. The Assessing Officer was conferred the power of civil court to examine and find out the real nature of transaction. If the Assessing Officer could not exercise the power conferred on him, it is not known how the individual citizen of this country will be able to find out the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has to find out the address of M/s Tulip Telec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
