Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Standard Press (India) ... on 4 January, 2023
1/7 T.C.A.No.416/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 04-01-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No.416 of 2022
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle – 2,
Madurai. ... Appellant
-vs-
M/s.Standard Press (India) Private Limited. ... Respondent
Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench,
Chennai, dated 19.10.2022, in I.T.A.No.1618/Chny/2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Tax Case Appeal is filed, raising the following questions of law :
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in rendering its decision on the basis of incorrect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7 T.C.A.No.416/2022
claim made in the paper book of the assessee that relevant documents
were produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of
assessment proceedings without verifying the authenticity of the claim of
the assessee ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT (A), when the CIT
(A) has admitted the additional evidence without affording opportunity
to the Assessing Officer in violation of the Income Tax Rule 46A ?
2. Very briefly, the facts are that the respondent assessee, who is a leading
printer in Sivakasi, filed its return of income on 28.09.2013, admitting ''Nil'' income, for
the Assessment Year 2013-2014. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a
Notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act,1961, in short, ''the Act'', dated
04.09.2014, was issued to the respondent assessee. There was a search and seizure
under Section 132 of the Act in the group concerns of the respondent assessee. During
the course of survey, it was found that the verification of the profit and loss account,
which was impounded, revealed that the net profit was Rs.6,83,00,406/-, while the
assessee had admitted the net profit as Rs.76,14,663/- in the return of income tax filed
on 28.09.2013. The difference was added to the income by treating as profit undisclosed
by the assessee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/7 T.C.A.No.416/2022
3. Aggrieved over the order of the Assessing Officer, the respondent
assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
who found that the discrepancy was in view of the fact that the branch loss was not
taken into account, although relevant material was produced before the Assessing
Officer, and had the same been considered, the alleged discrepancy might not exist.
4. In this regard, it is apt to refer to relevant portion of the order of the first
appellate authority, which reads as under :
''5.2. In the P&L A/c for YE 31-3-2013 Net Profit before tax and
after tax of Head office Sivakasi is shown at Rs.6,83,00,406 which is the
figure as per impounded P&L A/c. In the consolidated P&L A/c., Loss
of Mumbai Branch (started on 23-10-2012) is admitted at
Rs.6,06,85,739. Consolidating both, NP shown in the consolidated P&L
A/c. is Rs.76,14,663/-, which is the figure admitted in the ROI vide
extract above, filed before Survey. There are separate P&L A/c for
Bombay branch (loss at Rs.6,08,85,738), Head Office Sivakasi (profit at
Rs.6,83,00,406) and consolidated P&L of both (NP at Rs.76,14,663)
copies of which have all been filed both before A/O and at appellate
stage. Thus, the NP as per impounded P&L A/c fully tallies with the NP
shown against Sivakasi HO.
5.3. The mistake lies in not considering the Bombay branch loss
and not fully perusing the consolidated P&L A/c. Therefore, there is no
omission of any net profit as assumed by the learned A/O, who has
considered the P&L A/c of Head Office only and the Bombay branch
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/7 T.C.A.No.416/2022
P&L A/c was omitted to be considered.''
5. The matter was carried in appeal by the Revenue before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, whereupon, the order of the first appellate authority was confirmed
on the premise that all the documents were furnished before the Assessing Officer and
that there was no new material. The relevant portion in the order of the Tribunal is
relevant and it is extracted below :
''9. After hearing rival contentions and going through the above
facts narrated, we find that the assessee has filed complete consolidation
of both Profit & Loss account i.e., for head office as well as Mumbai
Branch. It is clear that there is a loss on Mumbai branch of
Rs.6,08,85,738/- and profit of Rs.6,83,00,406/- on head office at
Sivakasi. The consolidated figure comes to net profit of Rs.76,14,663/-,
which is declared by the assessee. We noted that since the above details
were incorporated in the relevant schedules in the audited accounts and
return of income is filed much before the survey conducted by the
Department u/s.133A of the Act, we find no reason to refer the matter
back to the file of the AO particularly, when all the information were filed
by the assessee before him. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of
CIT (A) deleting the addition. We confirm the order of CIT (A) and
dismiss this appeal of Revenue.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/7 T.C.A.No.416/2022
6. Revenue is in appeal before this Court against the order of the learned Tribunal
on the premise that the appellate authorities have erred in permitting the raising of
additional evidence without affording an opportunity to the Assessing Officer and in
violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
7. We find from the concurrent findings of the first appellate authority and
also the Tribunal that the documents assumed to be additional evidence were produced
even before the Assessing Officer. As a matter of fact, the same was produced even
during survey. Thus, the question of invoking Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules does
not even arise, in view of the fact that the alleged material, which was assumed to be the
additional evidence, was always available before the Assessing Officer.
8. In the circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the order
impugned herein, for no question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, this Tax
Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.)
(M.S.Q.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 04-01-2023
Speaking / Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/7 T.C.A.No.416/2022
dixit
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
dixit/ssn
T.C.A.No.416/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/7 T.C.A.No.416/2022
04-01-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
