Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
« From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

ACIT, Circle 1,Meerut. Vs. Anand Duplex Ltd., 85, Saket, Meerut.
December, 06th 2012
                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     (DELHI BENCH `A' : NEW DELHI)
              BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
               SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                              ITA No.5096/Del /20112
                              Assessment Year : 2009-10

ACIT, Circle 1,                      Vs.             Anand Duplex Ltd.,
Meerut.                                              85, Saket,
                                                     Meerut.
                                                     (PAN/GIR No.AABCA4927A)

(Appellant)                                          (Respondent)

                      Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Adv.
                      Revenue by : Mrs. Anuradha Misra, CIT(DR)





                                     ORDER
PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M.


       This appeal of the department is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-

Meerut, dated 03.07.2012, relevant to assessment year 2009-10, whereby besides

challenging the action of the CIT(A) being in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules,

department has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.2,29,49,502/- as unproved

sundry creditors ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to confirm them and another

deletion of addition of Rs.1,27,27,605/- being inflated purchases out of total purchases of

Rs.12,72,76,048/- ignoring the fact that letters of enquiry in 12 cases sent to the parties

by the Assessing Officer remained un-complied with and purchases to the magnitude of

Rs.8,34,01,381 remained unproved out of which Assessing Officer disallowed merely

Rs.1,27,27,605/- treating only 10% of the total purchases as inflated and thus added only

a bare minimum amount out of unconfirmed sums of Rs.8.34 crores by taking support

from various case laws.
                                              2                    I.T.A. No.5096/Del./2012
                                                                            (A.Y. : 2009-10)
2.     At the very outset, Ld.DR submitted that assessee failed to get confirmed the

amounts as mentioned in the grounds of appeal before the Assessing Officer despite

having been given number of opportunities whereas CIT(A) has accepted such additional

evidence having been filed before him without waiting for the remand report sought for

which was yet to be replied by the Assessing Officer and after considering such

additional evidence deleted the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. So,

order of CIT(A) is not only violative of Rule 46A of the Rules, but also not in conformity

with law inasmuch as additions have been deleted without verification having been made

by CIT(A) at his level. It was thus pleaded to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and

restore the matter on his file for re-consideration of the appeal afresh.

4.     Ld.Counsel for the assessee has very fairly submitted that provisions of Rule 46A

of the Rules appears to have not been complied with by the CIT(A) as pointed out by the

Ld.DR. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to have fair play in the matter, appeal can

be restored back to the CIT(A) for re-consideration and appropriate action.

5.     We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record as well as case

laws cited by the department in the ground filed with memorandum of appeal and find

that certain additional evidence has not only been admitted by the CIT(A), but

considering the same, the impugned additions have also been deleted, when reply to

remand report had not yet come. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and

material on record, we hold that order of CIT(A) is not only violative of Rule 46A of the

Rules, but also in contravention of relevant provisions of law. As such while accepting

the appeal of the department, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back

on the file of the CIT(A) for re-consideration of the appeal after giving due opportunity to
                                             3                   I.T.A. No.5096/Del./2012
                                                                          (A.Y. : 2009-10)
the assessee as well as to the Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order while

complying with the provisions of Rule 46A and other relevant provisions of the law. We

hold and direct accordingly.




6.     As a result, the appeal of the Revenue gets accepted for statistical purposes.
       Order pronounced in open court on 03.12.2012.

               Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
       (SHAMIM YAHYA)                                                 (U.B.S. BEDI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                            JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : Dec. 03, 2012.
SKB
Copy of the order forwarded to:-
   1. Appellant
   2. Respondent
   3. CIT
   4. CIT(A), Meerut.
   5. CIT(ITAT)                                              Deputy Registrar, ITAT
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions ERP Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions ERP Software Solutions Supply Chain Management Solutions SCM Solutions Supply Chain Management Software Solutions SCM Software Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions India ERP Solutions India Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions India ERP Software Solutions India Supply Chain Management Solutions India SCM Solutions India Supply Chain Management Software Solutions India SCM Software Solutions India

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions