TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....70/- on the basis of unaudited accounts. The assessee's case was taken up for scrutiny assessment and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) asked the Company to provide audited accounts and details of expenses incurred by the Company during the year. However, due to lack of available data, the Company was unable to provide the said details. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated October 20, 2006, assessed the income at an ad-hoc 12% mark-up on total cost of providing services by the Company to its parent company. Accordingly, the taxable income was computed at Rs. 58,66,890/- . 2.2 The audit of the financial statements could be completed only by January 10, 2008 i.e. by the time assessment proceedings were already concluded. Further, the Assessee also filed an application with the Company Law Board on March 15, 2011 requesting compounding of offences under Companies Act, 1956 for not filing the audited annual account wherein it was submitted that the reasons for the delay were beyond the control of the company as there was change in management structure from time to time and there was an absence of persons responsible for compliances. The Compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings. Under rule 46A the appellant can furnish additional evidence which he could not furnish during assessment proceedings, if its case falls under one or more of the four conditions mentioned in mile 46A. The additional evidence does not mean the new evidence created after the conclusion of assessment proceedings. In view of the same and the objections raised by the assessing officer vide remand report dated 10.03.2015, the three audit reports (supra) are not admitted as additional evidence." ..................In my view this case does not require a reference to T.O.O as it was a no accounts case. Therefore this order is being passed without such report as the undersigned does not agree with the directions given by the predecessor." 2.6 Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT (A) wherein he has refused to admit additional evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: "1. On the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence i.e., audited accounts, tax audit report, accountant's certificate in Form 3CEB, transfer pricing documentation and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.4 not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in section 920(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds and without accepting the additions, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction under section 80-LA(2A) of the Act from the Gross Total Income (as assessed). 6. On the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. On the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 27I(1)(c) of the Act. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that additional evidence should be admitted as it is imperative to arrive at correct income of the assessee. It was submitted that during the second round of proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee had sought to file additional evidences vide communication....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l statements, tax audit report, Form 3CEB etc. filed by the assessee. 4.0 In response, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the assessee's prayer for admitting additional evidence and submitted that sufficient time had earlier been given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee for furnishing of the documents as was evident from Para-11 of the assessment order as well as Para-6 of the order of the Ld. CIT (A). It was submitted that the audit report was finalized after the completion of assessment proceedings and, thus, it was an evidence created after the conclusion of the assessment proceedings and, therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in refusing to admit such additional evidences. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is undisputed that the assessee did not file audited financial statements along with audit report either at the time of filing of return or during the course of assessment proceedings. In this regard, it is the assessee's contention that the same could not be done because of the some changes in the management. The bona fide of the assessee is lent credence by the fact that the assessee had a....