M/S.SILVERSON OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 674/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 January 2023AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly decide the issues and did not call for assessment records. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding sundry creditors, disallowance under Section 14A, and disallowance of donation under Section 80G. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not properly decide the disputes and requested a remand.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions and disallowances without proper adjudication, and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH, ‘A(SMC

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI SONJOY SARMA]

Hearing: 21.12.2022Pronounced: 05.01.2023

ORDER

PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:

1.

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:

1. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of sundry creditors made by the ld. AO who assumed it to be unsecured loans when they were not loans but sundry creditors and the purchases were not disputed.

2. For that the ld. AO erred in considering the sum of Rs. 20,24,000/- as loan ignoring the fact that on total purchase of Rs. 6,29,46,757/-, the sundry creditors of Rs. 20,24,000/- was normal and should have also looked into the fact that on similar purchase, the sundry creditors last year was Rs. 1,57,34,125/- which was duly accepted. More so when same creditor also appeared in the earlier year. M/s. Silverson Overseas Pvt. Ltd. AY 2014-15

3. For the ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding the dispute in relation to disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 11,466/- when there was no exempt income during the year as also accepted by the AO in the assessment order.

4. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding the dispute in relation to disallowance of donation u/s 80G of Rs. 77,722/- when they were genuine, full details were available in the return itself, and the AO should have made enquiry since the assessment was completed u/s 144.

5. For that the additions made were not called for and therefore they are liable to be deleted.”

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since the ld. CIT(A) did not allow claim of the assessee and did not call for any particulars during the course of hearing and order was passed against the assessee, therefore, the order was bad in law and he further submitted before us that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee and the issue raised in the instant appeal may be set aside to the file of ld. AO for proper adjudication. He further submitted that the matter may be remand back to the AO to decide the assessee’s claim and may grant leave to submit all relevant evidences in support of its claim before the ld. AO.

3.

The ld. DR was fair enough not to oppose such request made by the ld. AR. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that since the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) did not decide the issue properly and he did not call for any assessment records from the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, we in the interest of justice set aside the impugned order and remit it back to the file of ld. AO for deciding the issue raised before us by way of speaking order. We also direct the assessee to furnish such evidence in support of its claim and remain vigilant in receiving the notice of hearing from the ld. AO. It is also clarified that the assessee should not request for any adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and should file all necessary evidence/documents in support of its claim so as to facilitate the ld. AO for passing the order in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given proper opportunity of being heard. M/s. Silverson Overseas Pvt. Ltd. AY 2014-15

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →