|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5532 (Mum-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Where AO made addition on allegation that assessee reported lower turnover and assessee contended that VAT payments were excluded from reported turnover, considering fact that details containing input VAT available for set off with output VAT were admittedly not filed before AO and were filed before CIT(A), who did not seek any remand report from AO in this regard, therefore, matter was remanded to AO for de novo adjudication.
Appeal [CIT(A)] - Production of additional evidence - Allegation of reporting lower turnover - Claim of assessee that VAT payments were excluded from reported turnover
Assessee was engaged in the business of trading in paper and paper products. AO found out that assessee reported lower turnover in his profit and loss account. Assessee explained before AO that he followed exclusive method of accounting wherein VAT amounts were excluded from total sales while reporting in profit and loss account. However, proof of payment of VAT was not submitted before AO. Revenue was aggrieved by order of CIT(A) and contended that CIT(A) erred in not giving any opportunity by calling remand report from AO on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee at appeal stage, as required under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, neither he called for the case records to verify the facts. Held: Factual details containing input VAT available for set off with output VAT were admittedly not filed before AO and were filed before CIT(A) for the first time and the CIT(A) did not seek any remand report from AO in this regard. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, it was deemed fit and appropriate to remand the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication and decide the matter in accordance with law.
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2009-10
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT