Case Law Details
Sureshkumar K Kataria Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot)
ITAT notes that there was mismatch in the gross income reported by the assessee viz a viz the income reflecting in form 26AS for an amount of Rs. 4,13,081.00 only. As such, the assessee has shown less income by the impugned amount, therefore concurrent view was taken by the lower authorities that the assessee has suppressed the income in the books of accounts. However, we find that the assessee before the learned CIT (A) has contended that the impugned income was received after filing of return of income. Thus a doubt arises whether the impugned amount was shown by the assessee in the income tax return in the later year, if that be so, then if any addition is made in the year under consideration, it shall certain lead to the double addition which is undesirable under the provisions of law. However, it is equally important to note that the assessee under a mercantile system of accounting has to declare income based on the concept of accrual. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice and fair play we are inclined to give one opportunity to the assessee to make the properly presentation of the facts so that the AO could adjudicate the issue of afresh as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal is allowed for the statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 (in short the Ld. CIT(A)), Rajkot dated 04/09/2018 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was presented by the assessee in the year 2018 and thereafter it was listed for hearing on various occasions but none of the time anybody appeared from the side of the assessee except on one occasion. Considering the negligent approach of the assessee, we decided to proceed with the hearing ex parte to the assessee but after hearing the learned DR appearing on behalf of the revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
