9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal.
DR has merely relied on the assessment order of the AO without providing any new arguments to support the disallowance. Since the AO's own remand report does not justify the ad-hoc addition, we find that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance.
Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition - Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a remand report under Section 250(4) of the Act. The AO objected to admitting additional evidence, arguing that the assessee had sufficient opportunities during assessment. However, CIT(A) exercised powers under Section 250(4) of the Act and directed the AO to examine the documents on 24.02.2020. A remand report was submitted by the AO on 19.07.2023 (after 3 years), verifying the genuineness of most expenses. 4. The AO's remand report accepted certain expenses such as Bank charges, interest, labor expenses, depreciation, and certain direct expenses. No specific discrepancies were pointed out in these expenses by the AO. However, the AO raised concerns about expenses paid in cash, and certain expenses related to rent, salary, insurance, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee stated that the Revenue's reference to "Section 46A of the IT Act" is incorrect, as no such section exists in the Act. The AR referred the correct provision is Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which deals with the admission of additional evidence by CIT(A). The AR further stated that the CIT(A) has not admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, but exercised powers under Section 250(4) of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue has accepted the assessee's claims in other years, an inconsistent approach in the year under consideration is unjustified. 7. The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of AO. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the assessment order, the order of the CIT(A), and the material placed on record. The contended, by way of raising first ground, that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, arguing that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings but failed to submit the necessary documents. However, from the perusal of the CIT(A)'s order, we find that: i. The CIT(A) exercised powers under Section 250(4) of the Act, which allows th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsistency. 9.1. It is well settled by various judicial precedents that an ad-hoc disallowance without identifying specific defects is legally unsustainable. In the case of ACIT vs. Anu Bajaj (ITA No. 1943/DEL/2023, dated 19.01.2024), the Delhi Bench held that if relief is granted based on the AO's own remand report, the Revenue is precluded from challenging the same before the Tribunal. 10. The DR has merely relied on the assessment order of the AO without providing any new arguments to support the disallowance. Since the AO's own remand report does not justify the ad-hoc addition, we find that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance. 11. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
