IN INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member IT.A. No. 864/Mds/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Shri P. Mohanraj, Income Tax, Vs. 501, Vandalur Kelambakkam Main Corporate Circle 1(1), Road, Mambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 127. [PAN:AANPM0999H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Date of hearing : 21.07.2016 Date of Pronounce ment : 07.10.2016 ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, dated 30.12.2015 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. Revenue has raised following two grounds: 1. order of learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of case. 2 I.T.A. No.864/M/16 2.1 learned CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer towards difference of amount in Form NO.26AS with P&L Account. 2.2 learned CIT(A) failed to give opportunity to Assessing Officer to verify reconciliation statement between 26AS and P&L Account submitted by assessee before him, which was not produced before Assessing Officer, thereby violating Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. 2.3 learned CIT(A) ought to have remanded case before Assessing Officer for verification. 3.1 learned CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance made u/s.2(22)( e) of I.T. Act to tune of Rs.2,05,95,569/-. 3.2 learned CIT(A) failed to consider fact that advances were made neither for business purposes nor for working capital. All these advances have to be considered as loan and provision of Section 2(22)( e) is squarely applicable to case of assessee. 3.3 learned CIT(A) failed to note that invoices and ledger extract in support of assessee's claim were submitted only at time of appellate stage and have not been submitted before Assessing Officer at time of assessment stage. 3.4 learned CIT(A) failed to give opportunity to Assessing Officer to verify invoices and ledger extract submitted by assessee before him, which was not produced before Assessing Officer, thereby violating Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. learned CT(A) ought to have remanded case before Assessing Officer for verification. 4.1 learned CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance made u/s .10(14) (i) to tune of Rs.7,50,000/- stating that uniform allowance, reimbursement of refreshments, helper allowance and reimbursement of books and periodicals were wholly and exclusively incurred in performance of his duties as Managing Director. 4.2 learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated fact that Assessee has not produced any evidence in support of claim before Assessing Officer. 3 I.T.A. No.864/M/16 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at time of hearing, it is prayed that order of learned CIT( A) may be set aside and that of Assessing Officer restored. 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee is director of M/s. Diamond Engineering Chennai P. Ltd. and engaged in business of engineering and fabrication. He filed his return of income on 29.09.2008 declaring total income at .2,29,49,539/-. return filed by assessee was processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and order under section 143(3) of Act was passed on 31.12.2010 with assessed income of .2,66,24,870/-. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of Act was issued and served on assessee on 01.10.2012. In response thereto, assessee filed all details as called for. After considering submissions and verification of details of assessee, assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Act was completed by assessing total income of assessee at .6,35,87,595/- after making various disallowances. 3. assessee carried matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). After considering submissions of assessee and verification of particulars, ld. CIT(A) allowed appeal of assessee. 4 I.T.A. No.864/M/16 4. On being aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal and mainly contended that Assessing Officer was not given opportunity to verify reconciliation statement between 26AS and P&L Account submitted by assessee before ld. CIT(A), which was snot produced before Assessing Officer thereby violating Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules and pleaded that matter may be remitted back to Assessing Officer for verification and deciding issues afresh. 5. On other hand, ld. Counsel for assessee did not seriously object to submissions of ld. DR. 6. We have heard both sides, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of authorities below. On perusal of appellate order, ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 9 that reconciliation statement between 26AS and returned turnover/salary received as per IT returns was filed in tabulated form in course of appellate proceedings and he has considered same. However, assessee has not filed reconciliation statement before Assessing Officer for verification. Moreover, ld. CIT(A) has not obtained any remand report from Assessing Officer before accepting and passing appellate order, thereby, violated provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. Thus, we set aside order passed by ld. CIT(A) 5 I.T.A. No.864/M/16 and remit entire matter to be file of Assessing Officer for verification and decide computation of taxable income in accordance with law after allowing opportunity of being heard to assessee. 7. In result, appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th October, 2016 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 07.10.2016 Vm/- Copy to: 1. Appellant, 2. Respondent, 3. CIT(A), 4. CIT, 5. DR & 6. GF. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai v. P. Mohanraj