AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1.Ground 1 General CIT A erred in confirming assessment without granting hearing and without considering submissions in violation of natural justice.
Ground 2 Section 40 a ia Disallowance wrongly upheld despite already disallowed in ITR and arising due to clerical misclassification with incorrect amount considered.
Ground 3 Section 43B Disallowance made without identifying specific unpaid amounts OR examining evidence leading to arbitrary full disallowance.
Ground 4 Unbilled revenue Addition results in double taxation as income already offered in earlier year and is based on contradictory reasoning.
Ground 5 Foreign travel expenses Disallowance made arbitrarily without examining business purpose OR individual expenses and based on incorrect interpretation of agreement.
Ground 6 Section 10AA Deduction denied by disregarding books without invoking Section 145 3 and applying arbitrary cost allocation despite proper records.
Ground 7 Penalty under Section 270A Penalty initiated without proper satisfaction and wrongly treating bona fide claims as misreporting.
Ground 8 Demand under Section 156 Demand wrongly raised including already paid amounts and liable to be recomputed based on reliefs claimed.”
The brief facts are that the assessee company had filed its return of income dated 30.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.5,18,29,080/- and had claimed deduction u/s 10AA amounting to Rs.2,32,47,897/- from its unit in SEZ Mohali. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. After duly considering the assessee’s submission, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019 determining the total income at Rs.12,26,80,318/- after making various additions/disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who, vide order dated 23.01.2026, upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with cogent documentary evidence. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the Ld. AO made various additions/disallowances on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish cogent documentary evidences to substantiate its claim. Even before the First Appellate Authority the same were not filed by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed voluminous documents along with additional evidences to substantiate its claim. The Ld. AR prayed that the additional evidences are germane for deciding the issue in hand and prayed that the same be admitted and adjudicated upon. In the interest of justice dispensation and on the basis of principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and thereby remand all the issues back to the files of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication on the basis of the submissions and documentary evidences filed by the assessee. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld. AO who will have to pass a de novo assessment order after duly considering the submission of the assessee and adjudicate the same in accordance with the law and on the merits of the case. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the Ld. AO. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.