9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been show caused informing him regarding reply received from M/s. Utkal Export and asking the assessee to reconcile the same. If the assessee fails to explain and reconcile the differential amount, the revenue authorities were well empowered to make addition in the hands of the assessee u/s.69A - no hesitation to hold that the addition has been made in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the ld CIT(A) was not justified and correct in upholding the same. Assessee should have been allowed to reconcile and explain the differential amount of all the bills and processing charges paid to the assessee in cash as per reply of M/s. Utkal Exports furnished before the AO. Issue related to additions made by the AO on both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Date Amount 30/09/2013 2,64,801.00 01/11/2013 7,81,801.00 02/12/2013 9,29,542.00 raised by the M/s Utkal Exports amounting to ₹ 19,76,144/- on which tax has been deducted at source but assessee company has found some mistake in bills, so that the assessee company has paid that amount in next Financial Year i.e. 2014-15. 4. For that, learned assessing officer has not applying his mind and add back the cash payment of ₹ 5,71,812/- to M/s Utkal Exports on which no bill was raised by the M/s Utkal Exports against the cash payment of ₹ 5,71,812/-.That the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order is liable to be quashed. 4. A.R. submitted that the additional ground raised by the appellant goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, the additional ground may kindly be admitted for adjudication as the same can be considered and decided on the basis of material already available on record without any further record or documents. 5. Replying to above, ld DR opposed to the admission of additional ground. However, in all fairness, ld DR submitted that the additional ground is nothing but only the repetition of issues taken in original ground of the assessee. Therefore, the department has no serious objection if the same is admitted for consideration and adjudication. 6. In view of above and respectfully follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing to explain the differential amount as per reply of Utkal Export and other financial statements books of account of the assessee. 8. Replying to above, ld DR submitted that as per reply received by the AO in response to notice u/s.131 of the Act, it was clearly revealed that the assessee paid an amount of ₹ 19,76,144/- as processing charges in respect of three bills raised by M/s. Utkal Export and from the reply of M/s. Utkal Export, it was also revealed that the assessee has also paid an amount of ₹ 5,71,812/- as processing charges in cash to Utkal Export, which was not recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the AO was right in making addition u/s.69A of the Act on both the amounts. 9. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reply received from M/s. Utkal Export and asking the assessee to reconcile the same. If the assessee fails to explain and reconcile the differential amount, the revenue authorities were well empowered to make addition in the hands of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the addition has been made in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the ld CIT(A) was not justified and correct in upholding the same. 10. Considering the totality of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considering opinion that the assessee should have been allowed to reconcile and explain the differential amount of all the bills and processing charges of ₹ 5,71,812/- paid to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
