The petitioner was granted liberty to present additional evidence, which must be considered by the AO in accordance with the law

A fresh opportunity to establish the authenticity of the income tax audit report was granted to the assessee by the Karnataka High Court. The court set aside the order of the Assessing Officer rejecting the tax audit report submitted by a Chartered Accountant ( CA ) on ground that the schedule and the annexures were not signed by the CA firm partner. The petitioner, C T Raghu challenged the rejection of their Tax Audit Report for the assessment year 2012-13. The dispute arose from an order dated December 27, 2023, where the Assessing Officer had dismissed the petitioner’s claim, primarily due to unsigned schedules and annexures by the CA firm’s partner. Tax Audit Pro: Expert-Led Course for Success – Hurry, Join Now Initially, the Assessing Officer’s order was contested in ITA No. 787/2018, which led to the High Court’s intervention on November 28, 2022. The court had remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer, instructing them to provide evidence showing that the alleged amount was received before April 1, 2011. Despite presenting a Tax Audit Report and related documents, the petitioner’s claim was rejected again due to the alleged insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner argued that additional time was needed to produce further evidence to substantiate their claim, including signed schedules and annexures, which had previously been missing. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that with one more opportunity, the petitioner could address the concerns raised by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the income tax department’s counsel contended that since the petitioner had failed to meet the requirements even after remand, the impugned order should stand. Tax Audit Pro: Expert-Led Course for Success – Hurry, Join Now Justice S R Krishna Kumar noted that while the Tax Audit Report was rejected due to unsigned documents and missing bank statements, the petitioner’s request for another opportunity to provide additional evidence was reasonable. Considering the contention of the petitioner that additional documentation could verify the authenticity of the Tax Audit Report, the Court set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was granted liberty to present additional evidence, which must be considered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the law. Adv. Sheetal Borkar and Adv.  M. Dilip appeared for the assessee and the income tax department respectively.