ANMOL SATISH UPADHYAY,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17 (1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

The assessee in appeal has assailed the impugned order on two ground, viz:

Shri Mehul Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that though the CIT(A) in the impugned order has mentioned that there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued on various dates, the said findings of the CIT(A) are contrary to the facts and documents on record. The assessee furnished necessary details viz.: copies of the Balance Sheet, Audit Report, Bank statement, cash book, purchase invoice, closing stock valuation, purchase register, etc. The acknowledgment of the documents furnished by the assessee on ITBA portal on 09/06/2023 is at page-7 of the paper book.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha representing the Department defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. A glance of the impugned order gives an impression that it is an ex-parte order. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee had demonstrated that the assessee respond to the notices issued by CIT(A) and furnished the relevant details to substantiate its contentions with respect to adhoc additions made by the Assessing Officer. The acknowledgement available on record reveals that the assessee in response to notice issued on 05/06/2023 has furnished the submissions and the relevant documents on 09/06/2023. Along with submissions the assessee had filed supporting evidences in the form of Balance Sheet and Audit Report, Bank statement, cash book, closing stock valuation, purchase invoice and purchase registers, warehousing charges register, etc. Thus, the observations of the CIT(A) that no documents or details were submitted by the assessee are contrary to the documents on record. The CIT(A) while passing the impugned order on 19/06/2023 has failed to take cognizance of the evidences furnished by the assessee. In ground No.1 of appeal the assessee has assailed adhoc disallowance of Rs.27,133/- being 25% of warehousing charges Rs.1,08,133/- on the pretext that the amount was paid in cash. The assessee has drawn our attention to the ledger which clearly shows that as against total payment of Rs.1,04,000/- the assessee has paid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque drawn on HDFC Bank and the balance amount was paid in the subsequent Assessment Year. The assessee has also placed on record bank statement. A perusal of the same reveals that Rs.1,00,000/- was debited from the bank account of the assessee on 31/01/2014 in respect of a cheque issued in the name of Vidhi Logistics towards warehousing charges. Thus, we find no reason to sustain adhoc addition qua warehousing charges. The assessee succeeds on ground No.1 of appeal.

In ground No.2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed adhoc addition of Rs.44,88,013/- being 25% of the total outstanding creditors. The assessee has furnished details of the creditors before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer after recording the fact that the assessee had submitted ledger copies of the said creditors in his books with bank statement made adhoc addition for the reason that the assessee failed to file confirmations from third parties. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee had furnished all the relevant details to substantiate its claim, however, the assessee would also furnish confirmation from the respective parties. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer . The assessee is directed to furnish confirmations from the creditors that have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the first round. The Assessing Officer after considering the confirmations or any other relevant documents furnished by the assessee to substantiate genuineness of the creditors shall decide the issue, in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground No.2 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.