Case Law Details
C. T. Raghu Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
In the case of C.T. Raghu Vs ITO, the Karnataka High Court addressed a dispute involving the rejection of a tax audit report for the assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner’s claim had been rejected by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) on the grounds that the schedule and annexures of the Tax Audit Report were unsigned by the Chartered Accountant’s (CA) partner. Additionally, the petitioner failed to produce crucial documents such as bank statements. Despite a previous court order in ITA No. 787/2018, which remitted the matter back to the ITO for fresh consideration, the petitioner’s claim was again denied for lack of sufficient supporting evidence. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioner sought further recourse, requesting another opportunity to submit additional documents.
The High Court, after reviewing the petitioner’s grievance and the ITO’s arguments, found it appropriate to grant the petitioner another opportunity. The court recognized the petitioner’s willingness to produce additional evidence to establish the authenticity of the Tax Audit Report and related documents. The court set aside the ITO’s impugned order dated 27th December 2023 and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The petitioner was given the liberty to present further documentation and arguments, which the ITO is directed to assess in accordance with the law. This ruling ensures that the petitioner gets a fair chance to prove his case with all necessary submissions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order passed by the respondent at Annexure-B for A.Y.2012-13 dated 27.12.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the first instance, the Assessing Officer having passed the order against the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in ITA No.787/2018, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 28.11.2022 by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer to produce the material to show that the alleged amount was received prior to 01.04.2011. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he placed the certificate of Tax Audit Report, substantiating his claim and available documents, the Assessing Officer has once again rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing the impugned order which is assailed in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the light of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that sufficient material was not produced by the petitioner, if one more opportunity is provided by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back for reconsideration afresh, the petitioner would produce additional documents to substantiate his claim.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits since petitioner did not substantiate his claim even after remand, the respondent was left with no option but to pass the impugned order, which does not warrant interference in the present petition.
5. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent-Assessing Officer has refused to accept the Tax Audit Report by Chartered Accountant on the ground that the schedule and Annexures were not signed by the partner of the CA Firm and contained only signature of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also come to the conclusion that the Bank Statement of the petitioner and other documents had not been produced and consequently, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner. However, in the light of the specific contention urged on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would produce additional documents to substantiate his claim and also establish genuineness and authenticity of Tax Audit Report by making necessary submissions in this regard before the Assessing Officer, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed;
(ii) Impugned order dated 27.12.2023 for A.Y.2012-13 at Annexure-B passed by the respondent is hereby set-aside;
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law; and
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents, judgments, etc., which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall proceed further in accordance with law.
Author Bio
