Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Assessment - Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the relief granted by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) ought to have interfered with the orders passed by the AO in its entirety and not restricted the same to a partial relief.
Facts: After the books of accounts were produced by the assessee and information was furnished, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) by making addition towards inflation of expenditure under the head "Service Charges" and addition towards interest on I.T. Refund for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessment for the year 2014-15 was completed under section 143(3) making an addition of Rs. 2,03,68,410/- stating to be bogus expenditure claimed towards service charges and towards employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESI remitted beyond the due date. CIT(A) by common order partly allowed the appeals by restricting the disallowance of service charges and deleting the interest on I.T.Refund for the assessment year 2013-14 and restricting the disallowance of service charges and deleting the addition in respect of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESI for the assessment year 2014-15. Against the said orders of CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee and allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue. Challenging the said order, the assessee is before this Court.
Held, that Tribunal erred in observing that orders of CIT(A) to the extent it grants relief to the assessee are on presumption. This finding is incorrect because the relief granted by CIT(A) was in respect of payments, which were verifiable. It is not in dispute that the vouchers and registers were produced before the AO and the originals are also shown to have been produced at the time of assessment. AO merely going by statements of a few employees, cannot disbelieve statutory registers and forms, as there is a presumption to its validity and the onus is on the person, who disputes the validity or genuinity of the document. Therefore, in our considered view, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the relief granted by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) ought to have interfered with the orders passed by the AO in its entirety and not restricted the same to a partial relief. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant-assessee. - NEW WOODLANDS HOTEL (P.) LTD. V/s ASSTT. CIT -  29 ITCD Online 011 (MAD)