TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Delhi High Court in Virgin Securities Credits (P) Ltd. [ 2011 (2) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in admitting the additional evidence. Disallowance of 40% of total direct/indirect expenses and disallowance of claim u/s 80C - HELD THAT:- On the basis of evidence produced by the assessee and admittance thereof under Rule 46A of the Rules, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the above disallowances. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to enable us to take a view different from that of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we reject the grounds related to deletion of these disallowances by the Ld. CIT(A) in both the AY(s). Addition on account of difference in opening stock of the current year and closi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 51,653/- on account of disallowance of assessee's claim u/s 80C of the IT Act. AY 2012-13 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,75,71,490/- on account of disallowance of 40% of total direct/indirect expenses. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,09,453/- on account of difference in the opening stock figure of current year with closing stock figure of previous year. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the fresh/additional evidence under Rule 46A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses claimed at Rs. 4,33,34,166/- and disallowance of deduction of Rs. 51,653/- claimed under section 80C of the Act. For AY 2012-13 also statutory notices were not complied with resulting in ex-parte assessment framed on 26.03.2015 under section 144 of the Act on total income of Rs. 2,66,12,936/- including therein disallowance of Rs. 1,75,71,490/- being 40% of direct/indirect expenses claimed at Rs. 4,39,28,726/-; addition of Rs. 76,09,453/- being difference between opening stock of AY 2012-13 and closing stock of the preceding AY 2011-12 and disallowance of Rs. 51,653/- claimed under section 80C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals in both the years before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the disallowances and addition made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiating the books of account are deleted. 5.2 As regards the disallowance of Rs. 51,653/- claimed under section 80C in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 made by the Ld. AO for want of proof, evidence was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding payment of LIC premium of Rs. 40,958/- (Rs. 25,000/- to Aviva Life Insurance Rs. 15,958/- to LIC) and Tuition Fee of Rs. 10,695/-. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore deleted the impugned disallowance of Rs. 51,653/- under section 80C in both the AY(s). 5.3 Regarding difference of Rs. 76,09,453/- in opening /closing stock in AY 2012-13 added by the Ld. AO, the Ld. CIT(A) observed and recorded the following findings in para 4.5.4.7: 4.5.4.7. The AR has stated that the difference is nothing but due to clerica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1,25,99,480.00 Closing Stock 2,37,71,210.00 2,37,71,210.00 2,37,71,210.00 The AR has submitted that the above details were also given at the time of assessment of assessment year 2013-14 before the respective AO and the same was accepted. The AR has stated that there was a clerical mistake made by the Article/staff at the time of filling the ITR Form for FY 2011-12, where ne inadvertently and wrongly filled '0' (at point No. 6 of Part A of P L A/c of the said return of Income) in place of 76,09,453.00 in the opening stock column and accordingly shown the difference (1,25,99,480.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46A of the Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) afforded opportunity to the Ld. AO and asked for remand report from him. The Ld. AO in his remand report only objected to admittance of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A). If he wanted, he could have examined the contents of the additional evidence furnished by the assessee during the course of remand proceedings but the Ld. AO did not do anything of the sort. On these facts, we are of the view that in the interest of justice and backed by the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Virgin Securities Credits (P) Ltd. (supra) the Ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in admitting the additional evidence and adjudicating the issues raised before him by the assessee. 8. The common ground of the Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
