Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS
M/s. Rarefield Engineers Pvt. The Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, No.104, East Madha Church Road, Company Circle-V(3), Royapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 013. [PAN: AABCR-7832-D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.05.2023 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANOMOHAN DAS, J.M: 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 30-12-2016 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter “the Act”] on 26-03-2013. The grounds urged in the appeal are as under:-
2 -: “1) The learned ClIT (A) has merely confirmed the additions of Rs.2340000/- as unexplained credit without properly considering the details furnished by the appellant. 2) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law while failing to consider the entries in the bank statements regarding borrowings by cheque and repayment by cheque are sufficient evidence/s to prove the genuineness of the borrowings. 3) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law while failing to consider the bank statement entries which itself proved that loans were received by cheque and repaid by cheque and wrongly treated the same as unexplained cash credits. 4) The learned CIT(A) has failed to consider the confirmation letters produced in respect of the lenders containing the PAN NO and address of the lenders as valid documents for proving the identity of the lender as well as the genuineness of the borrowings. 5) The learned CIT (A) has failed to consider the copies of the ledger printouts as well as bank statements of the assessee but stated wrongly that since because the bank statements of the lenders were not furnished by the assessee genuineness of the lenders and their capacity to lend could not be proved. In view of the above grounds and on any grounds that may be adduced before or at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT (A) be dismissed and the additions of Rs.2340000/- to the income of the assessee passed by A.O be deleted.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in the business of ship repairing. It filed its return of income on 11-01-2011 declaring total income of Rs.99,84,330/-. The return was subjected to scrutiny. The necessary notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee and were responded by the assessee by appearing and producing the details as was called from him.
The Ld. Assessing Officer, after considering the details as submitted by the assessee, completed the assessment vide order
3 -: dated 26-03-2013 by making addition of Rs. 23,40,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits to the total income of the assessee.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the Ld. 4.
CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30-12-2016 dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the assessment order as passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The same was due to the fact that the assessee could not substantiate its claim.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 2nd appeal before the 5.
Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 19-10-2022, dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 380 days.
The assessee filed further appeal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court against the order of the Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court, vide TCA No.161 of 2023 dated 27.02.2023, set aside the order of the Tribunal and condoned the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the Hon’ble High Court has remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the appeal on merit. The order of the Hon’ble High Court is as under:-
“8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the order dated 19-10-2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, which shall entertain the appeal and decide the same, on merits and in 4 -: accordance with law. The appellant shall place all the materials for consideration before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the Tribunal shall decide the matter on the basis of available materials, without granting further adjournments”. Pursuant to these directions, the appeal has been placed before this bench for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as directed by Hon’ble Court.
The Ld. AR, at the outset, drew attention to assessee’s petition under Rule 29 seeking admission of additional evidences in substantiation of assessee’s claim. The Ld. AR submitted that these evidences could not be furnished before lower authorities and the same would have material bearing on the assessee’s claim. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed admission of these evidences at this stage. However, it was common concurrence that if the additional evidences were to be admitted, the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. AO to consider these additional evidences and re-adjudicate the impugned issue afresh.
After going through the assessee’s petition, the bench concur that the additional evidences would have material bearing on assessee’s case and in the interest of justice, the same ought to be admitted. Accordingly, we accept the petition of the assessee and restore the impugned issue back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim.
5 -: 9. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 08th May, 2023.