9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELD THAT:- CIT(A) has passed a cryptic, non-speaking order and has accepted the contention of the assessee without giving any cogent reasons. We, therefore, remand the matter in issue back to the file of jurisdictional AO with a direction that the assessee-company shall furnish documentary evidence to prove it's case of difference in GP ratio.
We remit the matter in issue back to the file of learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the gross profit of the assessee company.
It is the risk and responsibility of the assessee to plead and prove it's case in consequential proceedings. If the assessee did not respond to the notice(s) issued by the learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer or taking adjournments under any pretext or failed to furnish requisite documents as called for, AO is at liberty to decide the matter in issue as per fact and law.
Grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability in the balance-sheet. The learned CIT(A) after examining the audited balance-sheet of the assessee company as on 31.03.2021 and since the same is found in order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 13,00,11,072/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in receipts as per 26AS and ITR. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : 1. "The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,00,11,072/-whether the difference is receipts shown in ITR & as per 26AS could not be categorically substantiated through the claim made before the CIT(A). 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition based on claim made by the assessee stating that the income was shown in the subsequent years without verification and examination of the evidences. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 5. During the course of hearing, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then only learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 13,00,11,072/- made by the Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) is in accordance with law and it should be upheld. He submitted that it is not an instance of deleting the addition without verifying the documents placed on record before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after calling the objections from the assessee and after considering the documents placed on record, deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 13,00,11,072/- made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee. He, accordingly, submitted that it is not a fit case to remand back the matter in issue back to the file of learned jurisdictional CIT(A) and pleaded that the order of the learned CIT(A) be confirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is a force the arguments advanced by the Revenue. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has taken different stands before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings as rightly pointed by the Learned DR hereinabove. The assessee has failed to properly explain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. The learned CIT(A) accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 8,65,59,856/-. 11. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : 1. "The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,65,59,856/-on account of estimated business income. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee company with all the notices issued by the AO and made satisfactory submissions/ explanations even after the AO clearly pointed out in the assessment order that the assessee could not substantiate his arguments with complete documentary evidences. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that assessee failed to submit specific information to the specific defects in the books of accounts as pointed by the AO and hence left with only option to reject the books of accounts of the assessee company. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer further noted that GP ratio for the preceding assessment year 2021- 2022 was @ 13.68% and for the present assessment year 2022-2023 the GP ratio was drastically fell down to 0.70%. The reason of the assessee company for such fall in the GP ratio was due to Covid pandemic outbreak and on account of idle charges and increase in the prices subsequent to Covid period. While making the impugned addition of Rs. 8,65,59,856/- the Assessing Officer disbelieved the contentions of the assessee-company and noted that the assessee was failed to substantiate it's claim of mismatch in inventories with supporting documentary evidence. We find that the learned CIT(A) has passed a cryptic, non-speaking order and has accepted the contention of the assessee without giving any cogent reasons. We, therefore, remand the matter in issue back to the file of jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction that the assessee-company shall furnish documentary evidence to prove it's case of difference in GP ratio. With the above directions, we remit the matter in issue back to the file of learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer to examine the gross profit of the assessee company. Needless to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
