LABH SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(2), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1383/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 March 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the entire evidence might not have been considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh speaking order after admitting fresh evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s order upholding an addition of Rs. 14,45,010/-. The assessee argued that Section 115BBE was not applicable as the payment was for custom duty made through a bank account, though wrongly debited to the capital account.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 115BBE is applicable when custom duty payment was made from the bank account but wrongly debited to the capital account. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without considering all available evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM

For Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Pronounced: 19.03.2021

Hearing conducted via Webex आदेश/ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 23.08.2019 of CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh pertaining to 2015-16 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds:

1. That the order of Learned CIT(A), is against the law and facts of the case.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,45,010/- without appreciating the fact that section 115BBE is not applicable to the instant case as the payment for custom duty was made from bank account of the assessee through K.K. Cargo but wrongly debited to capital account of the assessee instead of Machinery account. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified while upholding the addition on the flimsy grounds that though the bank statement and screen print of SBOP shows the RTGS of the impugned amount but without confirmation of the K.K. Cargo, the payment cannot be treated as payment of custom duty.

ITA-1383/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 2 of 4 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified while upholding the addition without of entries made by the accountant in the books of the r assessee. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off.

2. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee requesting for time to file a Paper Book etc.

However, considering the material available on record after hearing ld. Sr.DR, it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex- parte qua the assessee appellant on merits.

3.

A perusal of the record shows that the assessee in the appellate proceedings sought to adduce fresh evidences invoking Rule 46A before the CIT(A).

4.

The ld. Sr.DR was required to advance arguments noting the fact that the admission of fresh evidence was opposed by the AO.

5.

The ld. Sr.DR inviting attention to para 4.2 page 14 “last two lines” submitted that apparently fresh evidences were admitted by the ld. CIT(A) before the order was passed. Accordingly, it was her argument that no grievance can be said to be made out thereafter.

6.

I have heard the submissions and perused the material on record. A perusal of the aforesaid lines to which attention was invited by the ld. Sr.DR shows that evidences by way of screen print out of the bank statement was being referred to. The relevant extract reads as under :

“4.2……….The additional evidences in the form of (i) Copy of screen printout of bank statement is admitted for adjudication of this present appeal as it goes to the core of the issues at hand.

ITA-1383/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 3 of 4 6.1 However, when the said is read alongwith para 4.1.1 from page 7 & 8 of the impugned order in the context of ground No. 3 raised in the present appeal, it is seen that there were certain other evidences which the assessee sought to bring to the attention of the CIT(A). Attention again is invited to Ground No. 3 raised which assails the sole reliance placed on the screen shot alone as reference thereto is also on payment of Rs. 14,45,075/- to M/s K.K. Cargo Movers towards the custom duty of Rs. 14,45,013/- and specifically mentioned in letter dated 20/12/2017 that he paid custom duty of Rs. 14,45,075/- through M/s K.K. Cargo Movers vide chq. No. 212828 dated 06/08/2014 from State Bank of Patiala.

Accordingly, on consideration of facts and circumstances as available on record, it is seen that apparently entire evidence has not been considered.

7.

Considering the fact that in the present proceedings also, time has been sought to file a Paper Book. In these facts and circumstances, as referred to above available on record, it would be in the interests of justice to admit the fresh evidences which the assessee sought to place before the said authority and restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. While so directing, it is made clear that in the eventuality the evidence is found to be not sufficient or incomplete and is required to be further supported by other evidences, it is directed that the specific opportunity to make good the evidences be provided. The assessee in its own interests is advised to participate fully and fairly in the proceedings before the CIT(A). Said order

ITA-1383/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 4 of 4 was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex.

8.

Before closing, it is made clear that since the order has been passed ex-parte qua the assessee appellant overturning the adjournment application moved, hence, it is made clear that in the eventuality of any prejudice faced by the assessee on account of non-representation in the hearing via Webex, remedy of recall etc. provided under the ITAT Rules, if so deemed necessary may be invoked as per law.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19th March,2021.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →