POOJA SPONGE PRAIVATE LIMITED,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL, SAMBALPUR

Shri K.K.Bajoria, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri K.K.Bajoria, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri K.K.Bajoria, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a company, which is It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a company, which is It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a company, which is doing manufacture of Sponge Iron. It doing manufacture of Sponge Iron. It was the submission that the was the submission that the assessment came to be completed under section 143(3) of the Act, on assessment came to be completed under section 143(3) of the Act, on assessment came to be completed under section 143(3) of the Act, on 31.12.2016 wherein, unsecured loans of the assessee to an extent of 31.12.2016 wherein, unsecured loans of the assessee to an extent of 31.12.2016 wherein, unsecured loans of the assessee to an extent of P a g e 1 | 3 Rs.5,70,70,110/- came to be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee had provided the confirmation letters. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) had without considering the evidences produced by the assessee, dismissed the assessee’s appeal. It was the submission that even though the remand report had been called, the assessee was not given adequate time to produce all the evidences before the AO to substantiate its claim. It was the prayer that the assessee may be given an opportunity to produce all the evidences before the Assessing Officer.

In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently opposed the prayer of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee has failed to produce the evidences as called for. It was the submission that the order of the AO and that of the ld CIT(A) be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that in the remand report, barely 15 days had been granted. The Assessing Officer is at Sambalpur and the assesse is in Rourkela, which is more than 200 kms. Obviously, the assessee should have been granted adequate opportunity to respond the remand proceedings. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case and we do so. P a g e 2 | 3

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

Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31/01/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to :