ACIT, Hyderabad V. M/s Om Surya Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 1313/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3286 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAMAL JOK PAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T.A. NO. 1313/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 16(3) HYDERABAD. VS. M/S. OM SURYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN: AAACO2385D APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SMT. KAMAL JOK PAL RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VP: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-V DATED 22.07.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS BEING DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA ASSESSEE-RESP ONDENT, ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDE R: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE WAS ADMITTEDLY REIMBURSABLE AND THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE THAT IT HAD OFFERED SUCH REIMBURSEMENT FOR NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. I.T.A. NO. 1313/HYD/2010 M/S. OM SURYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. =========================== 2 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO PROPER EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING STOCK ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED IN RAIN. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO LOSS OF STOCK ON ACCOUNT OF RAIN WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. 6. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING BAD DEBTS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THAT CORRESPONDING INCOME HAD BEEN OFFERED EARLIER. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT ON THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) REGARDING BAD DEBTS. 7. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO BAD DEBTS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A CLEAR V IOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 IN THIS CASE AS THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME OR TO SUBMIT A REMAND REPORT WITH REGARD THERE TO. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SU BMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE P ROVISIONS OF I.T.A. NO. 1313/HYD/2010 M/S. OM SURYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. =========================== 3 RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 IN THIS CASE . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON ALL T HE ISSUES BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED A NY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR THE CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN T HE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), HE HAS RECORDED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TOWARDS THE CLAIM OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE, LOSS OF STOCK DUE TO RAINS AND BAD DEBTS, ETC. HOWEVER, WE FIND NOWHERE ANY MENTION OF ANY OPPORTU NITY BEING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY HIM. 5. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT IT SHAL L BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT BACK THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O FRAME A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE EVIDENCE IN SU PPORT OF ITS CLAIM REGARDING THE ISSUES OF ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AND DEDUCTION. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.06.2011. SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 03.06.2011 TPRAO I.T.A. NO. 1313/HYD/2010 M/S. OM SURYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. =========================== 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 16(3), 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. OM SURYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., 16, MODEL H OUSE, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-IV, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD