Case Law Details
Arvind Purseth Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack)
It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the only issue in the appeal of the assessee was that TDS had not been deducted in respect of payments made to M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. and M/s Gulshan Freight Carrier. It was the submission that Form 26A had been produced before the ld.CIT(A) but had not been produced before the AO. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) had refused to admit the Form No.26A on the ground that it was in the nature of fresh evidence. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submission and the grounds of appeals. A perusal of the facts and present case clearly show that the assessee has categorically admitted that he was suffering from ailment, which resulted in not being able to produce the evidence before the AO. Admittedly, form No.26A has also been produced before the ld. CIT(A). Once Form 26A is produced before the lower authorities, then levy u/s.201 of the Act would not be called for. Admittedly, this Form 26A has not been produced before the AO. The availability of the form 26A is also not in dispute. The proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) is an extension of the proceedings before the AO. This being so, as it is only a technical breach, in the interest of justice, issues in these appeals are being restored to the file of the AO so as to enable the assessee to produce the evidences before the AO to substantiate its claim.
Thus, the issues in the appeals are restored to the AO for readjudication after granting opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CUTTACK
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
