The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) stated the additional proof could not be considered without calling for a remand report or comments via AO.
The two-member bench of Lalit Kumar (Judicial Member) and R.K. Panda (Accountant Member) sees when the CIT(A) opts to admit any other proof then in that case he or she would need to furnish the assessing officer with a chance to find out the proof or permit cross-examination of the proof which has been produced by the taxpayer.
Under section 153A, the taxpayer referred to searching the assessment in AY 2011-12. The taxpayer has incurred the notional claim of Rs 8.79 cr for site restoration costs. The department has not allowed the provision on the basis of the information, the taxpayer does not make any expenditure to date and the provision was made for the unknown future liability availed for the present year. The taxpayer furnished the other proof for the expenses made in the next years for the restoration of the site to CIT(A).
The CIT(A) allotted the taxpayers petition and reveals that the council has not been able to provide any proof which shows that the taxpayer’s tax liability estimate was wrong.
The council, the taxpayer does not provide supporting documents and vouchers for verification and reconciliation to the Assessing Officer. To the AO, the bills and others were produced that do not shows all the information of the expenses made by the taxpayer.
The taxpayer, all the required vouchers along with the bills were being investigated via the assessing officer in the original assessment proceedings and then they were being investigated via the assessing officer in the 153A proceeding. If the books of accounts are cancelled via the assessor then the same would not be a statute to disallow 20% of the claim of the taxpayer’s expenditure. The assessing officer would losses to direct which vouchers or bills were not available for the taxpayer or explain the grounds for disallowing 20% of the total expenditure.
The CIT(A) disregarded any proof made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A until the AO has been provided with a reasonable chance, as per Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules 1962.
Recommended: ITAT: Proper Inspection Needed of Material Before Proceedings U/S 153
For restoring the problem the tribunal treated it properly to the file of the assessing officer, allotting another chance for the taxpayer to provide its case via providing the proof. Post allotting the taxpayer a chance to get heard, the assessing officer should make the decision as per the facts and the statute.
| Case Title | Ascend Telcom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT |
| Citation | ITA 508/Hyd/2020 |
| Date | 30.11.2022 |
| Counsel For Appellant | CIT(DR) Rajendra Kumar |
| Counsel For Respondent | Advocate K.R. Vasudevan |
| Hyderabad ITAT | Read Order |
