TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Partially Allows Revenue's Appeal, Restores Issues for Fresh Adjudication</h1> <h3>Viney Krishan Chaudhri Versus DCIT Circle-16(1), New Delhi</h3> Viney Krishan Chaudhri Versus DCIT Circle-16(1), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.2. Addition towards undeclared commission income.3. Powers of the CIT(A) to set aside issues to the AO.4. Admission of fresh evidence by the CIT(A) without adhering to Rule 46A.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 12,77,139 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that only surplus funds generated from business income were invested in mutual funds, and no borrowed funds were used for these investments. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance. The assessee's submissions, which were not considered by the CIT(A), included detailed explanations and documents demonstrating that investments were made only after the overdraft was cleared. The ITAT restored the issue to the AO, directing it to be reconsidered in light of the Delhi High Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT, emphasizing that Rule 8D applies from the 2008-09 assessment year.2. Addition towards undeclared commission income:The AO added Rs. 59,18,524 as undeclared commission income, observing that the amount was credited to the assessee's bank account but not included in the return. The assessee contended that this amount was already included in the salary income and provided reconciliation statements and Form 16 as evidence. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify these documents. However, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by setting aside the issue to the AO, as per Section 251(1)(a), which does not empower the CIT(A) to restore issues to the AO. The ITAT upheld the admission of fresh evidence by the CIT(A) but noted that the AO should have been given an opportunity to rebut the evidence. Consequently, the ITAT restored the issue to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the evidence and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.3. Powers of the CIT(A) to set aside issues to the AO:The ITAT clarified that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside issues to the AO, as this power was omitted by the Finance Act, 2001. The CIT(A) can only confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment. Therefore, the ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s action of restoring the issue to the AO was not permissible under Section 251(1)(a).4. Admission of fresh evidence by the CIT(A) without adhering to Rule 46A:The ITAT observed that while the CIT(A) has the power to admit fresh evidence under Rule 46A, it must also provide the AO an opportunity to rebut this evidence. In this case, the CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence but failed to follow the procedure under Rule 46A(3), which mandates confronting the AO with the new evidence. The ITAT rectified this by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the AO to reconsider the issue with the fresh evidence provided by the assessee.Conclusion:The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes. The issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, ensuring that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The ITAT emphasized adherence to legal procedures and proper consideration of all relevant evidence before arriving at a conclusion.
TaxTMI 