TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,33,666/- on account of disallowance of 40% of total direct/indirect expenses. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the fresh/additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 despite the fact that the A.O. had vide his remand report requested that assessee may not be allowed to submit fresh evidence, as it does not qualify for the same in view of the explicit provisions laid down under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 51,653/- on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961 (the "Act"). Both the cases were selected for scrutiny through CASS. The reason given for selection in AY 2012-13 is "difference in the opening stock figure of current year with the closing stock figure of the previous year". In response to statutory notice(s) for AY 2011-12 one appearance on 18.10.2013 was made and brief details of some expenses were filed by the assessee. Thereafter the assessee did not respond to notices leading to ex-parte order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") on 04.03.2014 on total income of Rs. 1,85,12,385/- including therein disallowance of Rs. 1,73,33,666/- being 40% of total direct/indirect expenses claimed at Rs. 4,33,34,166/- and disallowance of deduction of Rs. 51,653/- claimed under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es involved. 5.1 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1,73,33,666/- and Rs. 1,75,71,490/- being 40% of direct and indirect expenses out of Rs. 4,33,34,166/- and Rs. 4,39,28,726/- in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, the Ld. CIT(A) observed in para 4.5.4.4 of the appellate order that the assessee filed all the relevant documents like tax Audit Report, Balance sheet, P&L account, copies of sales, purchase and expenses bills, copy of ledger accounts, confirmation from parties etc. during the appellate proceedings which have been admitted. Therefore, ad-hoc disallowances in both the AY(s) made by the Ld. AO in the absence of documents substantiating the books of account are deleted. 5.2 As regards the disallowance of Rs. 51,653/- claime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,25,99,480.00 49,90,02 7.00 -76,09,453.00 F.Y 2012-13 Opening Stock 1,25,99,480.00 - 1,25,99,480.00 Closing Stock 2,37,71,210.00 2,37,71,210.00 2,37,71,210.00 The AR has submitted that the above details were also given at the time of assessment of assessment year 2013-14 before the respective AO and the same was accepted. The AR has stated that there was a clerical mistake made by the Article/staff at the time of filling the ITR Form for FY 2011-12, where ne inadvertently and wrongly filled '0' (at point No. 6 of Part A of P&L A/c of the said return of Income) in place of 76,09,453.00 in the opening stock column and accordingly shown the difference (1,25,99,480.00 minus 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) afforded opportunity to the Ld. AO and asked for remand report from him. The Ld. AO in his remand report only objected to admittance of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A). If he wanted, he could have examined the contents of the additional evidence furnished by the assessee during the course of remand proceedings but the Ld. AO did not do anything of the sort. On these facts, we are of the view that in the interest of justice and backed by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. (supra) the Ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in admitting the additional evidence and adjudicating the issues raised before him by the assessee. 8. The common ground of the Revenue in AY 2011-1....