2026 (4) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 20.10.2022 declaring Loss. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment the AO had made addition of Rs. 13,78,48,685/- on account of provision for expenses. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 23.03.2024 at (-) Rs. 7,71,29,712/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. "Whether on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eceived against these provisions in the subsequent year was also not brought on record. Therefore, the AO had held that a provision of Rs. 13,78,48,685/- was contingent and unascertained liability and accordingly he had made the disallowance. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed relief to the assessee by considering additional evidences in the form of invoices, ledger extract etc. without remanding the matter the Assessing Officer or without calling any remand report from him. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside to the AO with a direction to examine the fresh evidences brought on record by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Per contra, Shri Ankit Parikh, CA and the Ld. AR of the assessee subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egistered entities were inflated. Before the AO the assessee had made submission vide letter dated 15th March, 2024, a copy of which has been brought on record in the paper-book filed by the assessee. The assessee had explained that expense of Rs. 27,32,13,039/- was on account of salary, bonus, provident fund, staff welfare, leave encashment, gratuity etc. and that no GST was required for the employee's emoluments booked under different heads. Further that the expenditure of Rs. 14,48,58,525/- was on account of provision for different expenses and another sum of Rs. 3,27,44,866/- was on account of referral bonus, trading challenge and marketing expense. The assessee had thus furnished details of non-GST registered expense to the extent of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der of the Ld. CIT(A) is thus found to be in contravention to provision of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-Tax Rules, and his order cannot be upheld for this reason. It is further found that the assessee had furnished details of non-GST registered expense to the extent of Rs. 45,08,48,689/- only before the AO as against total expense of Rs. 54,68,90,214/-. The details in respect of difference of Rs. 9,60,41,525/- was neither filed before the AO nor brought on record before the Ld. CIT(A). 9. In view of above facts, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional AO with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to furnish the complete detail in respect of the entire expense of Rs. 54,68,90,214/- made ....