The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has directed for de novo adjudication finding the statement recorder under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961 without considering the documents and evidence produced.
The assessee Aggarwal Trading Company, filed return declaring an income. Assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee, an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was passed by making an addition in respect of difference in stock found during the course of survey operation, a sum made on account of excess cash found.
Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee has preferred an appeal out of the addition made in respect of excess stock found during the survey operation, sustained addition and further sustained addition on account of excess cash found. Aggrieved by the deletion of the addition the Department has filed appeal against sustaining addition the assessee has filed and the grounds mentioned above.
Prakash Chand Yadav,on behalf of the assessee submitted that though the statement recorded on oath during the course of survey proceedings having evidentiary value, the same could not be brushed aside in threshold.
P. Praveen Sidharth,on behalf of the revenue submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (CIT(A)) had not justified in accepting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act as assessee was provided sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings itself.
The Division Bench of B.R.R. Kumar, (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US, (Judicial Member) directed for denovo adjudication holding that,” if the matter is remanded to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the evidence, submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings for de-novo consideration and decide the matter afresh, the substantial justice would be rendered. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the CIT(A) to consider afresh on all the issues involved in the appeal filed by the assessee.”
‘While restricting the addition made on account of excess stock found during the survey rejected the correctness of the inventory prepared during the survey without giving proper reasoning and on the other hand while accepting another part of panchnama, the said approach of the CIT (A) in rejecting the correctness without cogent reasoning is erroneous.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
