TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party etc. The assessee on its part has tried to reconcile its income as offered in the books of accounts with Form 26AS but the said evidences which are critical evidences going to the root of the matter has been discarded by the CIT(A) at the threshold as the same were not admitted by CIT(A). No doubt, Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules give powers to Ld.CIT(A) to refuse admit additional evidences in certain circumstances as stipulated under Rule 46A but whence substantial justice is pitted against technicalities , the Courts will lean towards substantial justice. We admit the additional evidences filed by assessee before Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO for framing fresh assessment denovo after considering entire evidences furnished by the assessee in its defense on merits in accordance with law. AO shall admit all the evidences/explanation filed by assessee in its defense and then decide the issue in denovo assessment on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that the AO shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the interest of principles of natural justice in accordance with law. - ITA No.2764/Chny/2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged the adjustment to book profit. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that, in the instant case, the adjustment to book profit is only a consequence to the addition made under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant has included the income as reflected in Form 26AS in its books of account. However, it has been set off by way of credit notes. Therefore, the appellant has not violated provisions of Rule 37BA. 8. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 3,26,88,378/- made by the assessing officer even after detailed reconciliation statements have been filed before him. 9. The addition of ₹ 3,26,88,378/- to the book profit for the purpose of MAT Computation is a consequence of addition made under normal provisions arid therefore for the aforesaid grounds, the consequential addition to book profit should also be deleted. 10. For these and such other grounds that may be permitted to be raised during the hearing of the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Add: 12% on (4) treated as ST/VAT/CST (₹) Total of (4) + (5) Income not offered (3) (6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1 HCL Infosystems Limited 2,16,68,159 1,36,30,990 16,35,719 1,52,66,709 64,01,450 2 Sonata Information Technology Limited 12,56,45,854 8,87,13,327 1,06,45,599 9,93,58,926 2,62,86,928 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admission of new evidence under Rule 46A. 6. As per the assessment order, the A.O has made the addition on this issue both under normal provisions as well as u./s 115JB, With respect to the determination of Book Profit, the A.O has stated as under; *Since, the above mentioned income of ₹ 3,26,88,378/- has not been included in the audited statement while preparing it as per the accounting standards referred to in sub-section 3C of Section 211 of Companies Act, 1956, the said amount is also added to book profit, and tax liability is calculated accordingly. Here, reliance is also placed on the judgement in the case of Dream Shelters (P) Ltd vs. ITO by Hon'hle ITAT Agra Bench (2013) 29 Taxmann 14 (Agra-Trib} wherein it has been held that the loan income admitted by the assessee should be added for MAT purpose also. Therefore, in view of the above, the income not included in audited statement is added back to book profit Thereafter, as per the computation of book profit in page 4 of the assessment order, the AO has added ₹ 3,26,88,378/- to the book profit. The appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . before learned CIT(A) for the first time as the same could not be filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It was submitted that these additional evidences go the root of the matter and should be admitted in the interest of substantial justice to resolve the dispute between rival parties. It was submitted that Ld.CIT(A) did not admitted these additional evidences filed for the first time before learned CIT(A) on the ground that these are fresh evidences and no application was moved for the admission of the additional evidences as is contemplated under Rule 46 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 . It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that learned CIT(A) observed that AO has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and rejected additional evidences filed by the assessee. It is prayed by learned counsel for the assessee that these additional evidences go to root of the matter and be admitted in the interest of substantial justice to resolve dispute between rival parties. It is prayed that the matter be set aside and restored to the file of AO for denovo assessment and the assessee will produce all these ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the course of appellate proceedings but these additional evidences were not admitted by Ld.CIT(A) on the grounds that the assessee not furnished an application for admission of these additional evidences as is contemplated u/r 46A of the 1962 Rules as also that the AO had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and no justification is forthcoming from the assessee for not producing these evidences before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. We have observed that the assessee on its part submitted reconciliation statement to reconcile its income as reflected in Form 26AS with the income offered to tax as is reflected in books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The assessee has filed details for FY 2008-09 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10 2010-11 respectively before learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not admitted these additional evidences and hence these additional evidences have not stood the test of verification and enquiry by authorities below. Both the parties before us has also fairly agreed that one more opportunity is to be accorded to assessee to prove its case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
