BIPIN KUMAR AGRAWAL,BADABAZAR, SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, SAMBALPUR

Shri Rohit Kumar Singhania & Bijay Kumar Agrawal, Rohit Kumar Singhania & Bijay Kumar Agrawal, Rohit Kumar Singhania & Bijay Kumar Agrawal, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

At the very outset, it At the very outset, it was submitted by ld Sr DR that the assessee by ld Sr DR that the assessee has produced additional evidences in the form of bills, transportation has produced additional evidences in the form of bills, transportation has produced additional evidences in the form of bills, transportation

In reply, ld AR submitted that out of total purchases of Rs.21,07,58,529/-, the Assessing Officer is only challenging the purchase of Bitumen from M/s. RK Traders to an extent of Rs.37,27,195/-. It was the submission that the whole addition is on the basis of some reports/information received from GST Department that the M/s. RK Traders was indulging in purchase and sale only on paper without actual movement of goods. Ld AR submitted that the detail of the said information which has been received by the Assessing Officer has not been put to the assessee. It was the further submission that the Assessing Officer himself has not done any examination or verification. It was the submission that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. It was fairly admitted by ld AR that the evidences as submitted in paper book at pages 55 to 128 were not available before the lower authorities and has been produced before the Tribunal.

We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, substantial documents which have been called for by the Assessing officer have been P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2018-19 produced by the assessee before the Tribunal for the first time. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to M/s. RK Traders and they had also responded vide letter dated 7.3.2023. A perusal of the assessment order also clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has discarded the reply of M/s. RK Traders without pointing out any specific error in the submission or reply of M/s RK Traders. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that the Assessing Officer has received information from the GST Department and this information which has been received has not been put to the assessee. Further, a perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer in para 1.3 mentions that the assessee was issued a show cause notice under 148A(b) of the Act and the assessee has responded to the same also. Thus, clearly, evidences available with the Assessing Officer have not been put to the assessee for his rebuttal. This being so, in the interest of justice insofar as the assessee has not been put to the notice of all the evidences available with the Assessing Officer in respect of transactions with M/s. RK Traders, which is being claimed as bogus and also on account of the fact that substantial fresh evidences have been produced by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer shall