TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue against the order of Ld CIT(A) dated 16.3.2011. The grounds of appeals are as under:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.37,10,120/- by disallowing 40% of the total expenditure by admitting fresh evidences during the appellate proceedings without considering the remand report of Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.37,10,120/ as the assessee has not cooperated during the remand proceedings and assessee has not filed any audited P L account and balance sheet with audit report on 3CD form as per order sheet entry dated 20.1.2011. 3. That on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . On perusal of P L Account, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had incurred an expenditure of Rs.92,75,300/- under various heads and in the absence of documentary evidence in support of the aforesaid expenses, the Assessing Officer disallowed 40% of total expenses and added back to the income of assessee. Thus, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and made following submissions:- 1. That all the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not received by the assessee which resulted into non appearance by assessee or his legal counsel. 2. That on 13.11.2009, the Ld AR passed the ex parte order u/s 144 of the Act and made addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.11.2010 commented that letter written to assessee had come back un-delivered due to incomplete address and therefore he requested that since examination of accounts and vouchers is not possible, therefore, the additional evidence filed by the assessee company should not be admitted. On the remand report, the ld AR vide reply dated 16.12.2010 furnished complete address of the assessee along with sanction letter from IGL and telephone bill of MTNL as proof of residence of assessee and pleaded that contention of Assessing Officer is wrong as he had not sent any notice to the company. On receipt of rejoinder from Ld AR, the Ld CIT(A) again asked for remand report and Assessing Officer vide his office letter dated 28..2.2011 stated that asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer twice with specific directions to examine and comment on the merit of the expenses claimed by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has not made any adverse comments whatsoever on the merit of the above claims. Considering the voluminous details filed by the Ld AR during appellate proceedings and during remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer I find that appellant has discharged its onus regarding establishment of genuineness of the above expenditure. Considering the same, the ex parte estimated addition of Rs.37,10,120/- made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable and the same is therefore deleted. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld DR argued that assessee had not cooperated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
