Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 658 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance out of job charges - bogus claim of expenses - assessee does not maintain job work register and only summary of job work are available with it and in the absence of any quantitative records maintained item wise, it is absolutely impossible to believe the claim of job work expenses from the above said parties - assessee submitted additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 - HELD THAT:- We note that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause not to file these additional evidences before the lower authorities, due to circumstances beyond his control, as narrated by the assessee Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S.Gill vs The Chief Election Commission [1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] held “The dichotomy between administrative and quasi-judicial function vis-à-vis the doctrine of natural justice is presumably obsolescent after Kraipak (A.K. Kraipak - [1969 (4) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT]) which makes the water-shed in the application of natural justice to administrative proceedings. The rules of natural justice are rooted in all legal systems and are not any new theology. They are manifested in the twin principles of nemo judex in partesua (no person shall be a judge in his own case) and audialterem partem (the right to be heard). It has been pointed out that the aim of natural justice is to secure justice. In respect of the following parties Viz: M/s Shri Ganesh Fashion, M/s Maruti Nandan Textile, M/s Payal Fashion, M/s Radha Swami Creation, and M/s Deep Creation, the payments were made through banking channel and respective bills of job charges are on the record and assessee also submitted contra accounts, which were not properly considered by ld CIT(A). In respect of M/s Jahanvi Fashion, we note that assessee submitted additional evidences. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) in respect of above noted six parties only, to examine the evidences and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld CIT(A) in respect of above noted six parties. The assessee should submit these additional evidences, including bank statements and job charges bills before ld CIT(A).We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits,in respect of above noted six parties. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
|