9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery goods, yarn and knitted cloth in the name and style of M/s. A.P. Hosiery Industries. The return of income for the captioned year was filed declaring an income of Rs. 26,78,580/-. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] assessing the income at Rs. 49,17,260/- after making the following additions:- a) Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 45,680/- b) Addition u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 766/- c) Addition u/s. 36(1)(ii) to the tune of Rs. 21,92,232/- 2.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Ld. First Appellate Authority who partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 45,680/- m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid before the due date of the filing of return of income which was 24.12.2020. However, due to an inadvertent error, the Chartered Accountant (C.A.) of the assessee mentioned the said amount under clause 20(a) of the Tax Audit Report under "amount payable to employees as Bonus or Commission where such sum was otherwise payable to him as profits or dividend". It was submitted that this was the factual situation. The Ld. AR submitted that, however, due to this inadvertent mistake by the CA, while processing the Return, the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru (CPC) added to the same of the income of the assessee. 3.2. It was further submitted that an affidavit from the C.A. pointing out the error was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned has been rectified. Drawing my attention to the revised Tax Audit Report placed at pages 21 to 52 of the paper book, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is a vital piece of evidence, which goes to prove the case of the assessee and, therefore, the above Revised Tax Audit Report may be admitted as additional evidence by the Bench in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram (Dead) Through LRs V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax as reported in 357 ITR 133 (SC) and the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works as reported in 336 ITR 555 (P & H) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court have held that where the additional evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
