2023 (9) TMI 472 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Allows Appeals, Orders De Novo Adjudication

The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the impugned orders and restoring the matters to the AO for de novo adjudication ... Undisclosed income - Addition on basis of income appearing in Form 26AS - assessee is unable to furnish evidence to establish that no transaction was entered into with Sunway Construction during the financial year 2010-11 - HELD THAT:- Merely on the basis of AIR information regarding details in Form 26AS of M/s Sargon Geosynthetics Ltd. made the impugned addition. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after necessary examination of all the details furnished by the assessee including the details in Form 26AS of the assessee for the year under consideration. The assessee may also make necessary endeavour to obtain the information from Sunway Construction regarding its transaction with M/s Sargon Geosynthetics Ltd. and the period for which the impugned payment was made to M/s Sargon Geosynthetics Ltd. Also grounds pertaining to the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act is also restored to the file of AO for de novo adjudication.Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Allowability of payment of gratuity - CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Now in appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. The assessee has also filed the paper book enclosing the proof of payment of gratuity. We find that the assessee also filed a rectification application dated 16/03/2090 before the AO enclosing the payment receipt of the premium paid. As evident from the record that all these details were neither furnished during the assessment proceedings nor furnished before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue of allowability of payment of gratuity to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after consideration of all the details/submissions as filed by the assessee. The impugned order is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2011-12.2. Addition of INR 300,73,421 based on Form 26AS for A.Y. 2011-12.3. Computation of book profit under section 115JB for A.Y. 2011-12.4. Disallowance of gratuity payment of INR 93,16,597 for A.Y. 2016-17.Summary:Issue 1: Legality of the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2011-12The assessee challenged the assessment order passed by the AO and NFAC, claiming it was 'bad in law.' The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition based on information from DCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi, regarding M/s Sargon Geosynthetics Ltd., which merged with the assessee. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not examine the details thoroughly and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.Issue 2: Addition of INR 300,73,421 based on Form 26AS for A.Y. 2011-12The AO added INR 300,73,421 to the assessee's income based on Form 26AS, which showed receipts from Sunway Construction. The assessee argued that these receipts pertained to earlier financial years and were already accounted for by M/s Sargon Geosynthetics Ltd. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide necessary details and obtain information from Sunway Construction.Issue 3: Computation of book profit under section 115JB for A.Y. 2011-12The assessee contested the addition under section 115JB, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT. The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for de novo adjudication along with the primary issue of income addition.Issue 4: Disallowance of gratuity payment of INR 93,16,597 for A.Y. 2016-17The AO disallowed the gratuity payment deduction, as it was not mentioned in the Tax Audit Report. The assessee contended that the payments were managed through LIC and provided documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that these details were not furnished during the assessment or appellate proceedings and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all necessary information.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the impugned orders and restoring the matters to the AO for de novo adjudication after considering all relevant details and evidence.