TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is bad in law, contrary to facts, violative of principles of natural justice, and liable to be quashed. 1.2. The impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed as it has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the learned CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard through video conference despite a specific request made by the Appellant. 1.3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit ('AU') without properly appreciating the facts, submissions, documentary evidences and reconciliations furnished by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings. 1.4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disregarding the additional evidences, reconciliations and supporting documents furnished by the Appellant and without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and without undertaking any independent verification thereof. 1.5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disregarding the supporting documents, evidence, reconciliations, and expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....financial statement. 3. Addition on account of discrepancies in the value of transactions as per the books of account of the Appellant and balance confirmed by the vendors amounting to Rs. 5,53,16,810: 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,53,16,810 under section 69C of the Act solely on the basis of alleged differences between transaction values appearing in the books of account and the alleged confirmations directly obtained from vendors in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act without independently adjudicating the documents and explanations provided by the Appellant or providing any opportunity to verify and reconcile the difference. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) and AU failed to appreciate that the additions based on materials collected from third parties and relied upon against the Appellant can be made only after granting an effective opportunity to the Appellant to explain or rebut the same or submit reconciliation 3.3 The learned CIT(A) and AU failed to appreciate that the value of transaction reported in the books of account of the Appellant duly match with the value of transaction ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnished by the Appellant evidencing the tax deducted on professional/ legal fees. 6.2 The learned CIT(A) and AU failed to appreciate that tax had been duly deducted at source on the payments and therefore the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable. 7. Addition on account of non-deduction of TDS for interest payments amounting to Rs. 32,25,109: 7.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 32,25,109 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act without adjudicating the Form 16A furnished by the Appellant evidencing the tax deducted on interest payments. 7.2 The learned CIT(A) and AU failed to appreciate that tax had been duly deducted at source on the payments and therefore the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable. 8. Rejection of books of account under section 154(3) of the Act: 8.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Act. 8.2. The learned CIT(A) and AU failed to appreciate that no defects were identified in the method of accounting, books of account, stock record or quantitative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....470. In compliance with the show cause notice, the assessee submitted the reconciliation for the said difference in total sales as per the income tax return and GST data. As per the assessee, the difference was mainly on account of stock transferred from one branch of the company to another branch of the company, which has been excluded for the purpose of financial statements from sales as well as purchases, and the impact of stock transfer on the profit and loss statement is Nil. The assessee submitted that the stock transfer was reported in the GST return as the same is to be reported as per the GST law. Since the assessee did not provide any supporting documentary evidence in respect of the difference on sale of INR 29,59,40,487, the AO, doubting the genuineness of the difference, added the same to the total income of the assessee. The AO also made the addition of INR 2877 being the difference between the repair and maintenance expenditure claimed by the assessee and the details provided in the ledger account. The AO also made a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, it was noticed that the assessee has not deducted TDS on an amount of INR 1,58,25,592. In resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further, certain discrepancies were also noticed in the tax deducted at source by the assessee. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is further evident that the assessee provided certain information. However, as the same were not sufficient in view of the AO, various disallowances and additions were made vide assessment order. As per the assessee, all the details, in the absence of which the impugned additions have been made by the AO, were furnished before the learned CIT(A). From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned CIT(A), without considering any of these details, dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee on the basis that the assessee failed to furnish the details before the AO despite grant of ample opportunities. 8. It is trite law that the powers of the learned CIT(A) are coterminous with the AO. Thus, the learned CIT(A) can also examine any fresh piece of evidence being furnished by the assessee in support of its case, and if required, can also seek a remand report from the AO. However, as is evident from the perusal of the record, the learned CIT(A) did not take any of these steps, and straightaway dismissed the assessee's plea and....