AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M.
Appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal are as under :-
“1.That on the facts and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ['Ld. CIT(A)'] has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 9,54,60,860/-made by Ld. Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) for purchase expense incurred by the Appellant (a Joint Venture entity to whom the contract was awarded) on the assumptions and presumptions that the corresponding contract receipts were not accounted for in the books of the appellant but were accounted for in the books of the JV partner by whom the contract was executed.
2.That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said disallowance of Rs.9,54,60,860/-debited in P& L account of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that corresponding contract receipts were also credited in P & L account of the Appellant which is against the matching concept.
3.That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said disallowance of Rs 9,54,60,860/-on the 2 ground that the Appellant failed to produce the details of receipts and payments before the Assessing Officer as well him ignoring the audited accounts on record.
4.That the addition as made and sustained is based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises without any substantive basis or cogent material. Also, the addition as made has been sustained without complying with principles of natural justice and without providing proper lawful opportunity of personal hearing. As such too, the same is liable to be deleted.
5.That the assessment as made and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are against law and facts of the case involved.
6.That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other.”
The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the AO with his observation as under :-
“4.5Having referred to the relevant portions of the order and the appeal, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to come up with a clear picture. The appellant failed to produce the details of the entire receipts and purchases before the Id. AO as well me. The least appellant could have done is to provide in tabulated form the receipts and purchases made by appellant and parties of the JV. Instead of clarifying the genuine doubt of the Id. AO, the appellant has simply commented as to what all did the Id. AO presumed. In the absence of details, it is very difficult to comprehend anything out of the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has failed to provide detailed information that would offer a clear picture of all the transactions under the Joint Venture (JV), including its partners and their treatment in the accounts. In the absence of such clarity, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Id. AO.”
During proceedings before the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that all the required details were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Still then he has confirmed the findings given by the AO in the assessment order on the basis that the assessee has failed to produce further details.
Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order and we have also considered the arguments of the Ld. Counsel as well as of the Ld.DR.
We find that keeping in view the element of natural justice the assessee deserves another chance to file all the required details in order to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to give adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. Assessee is also directed to file all required details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.