YUKON ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROURKELA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 19.1.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.NFAC/2017- 18/10228288 for the assessment year 2018-19.
Shri Amulya Amulya Kumar Roy, ld AR appeared for appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal which is It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal which is It was submitted by ld AR that the only issue in this appeal which is being contested against the addition of Rs.22,58,550/ being contested against the addition of Rs.22,58,550/ being contested against the addition of Rs.22,58,550/- representing the purchases of purchases of G.P.sheets required for air-conditioning conditioning work. It was the
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No.133/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
submission that the assessee had purchased 50.190 mtrs of G.P.sheet from M.S. Steel Industry, Rourkela at Rs. 45,000/- per M.T. It was the submission that as M.S. Steel Industry did not respond to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act sent by the Assessing officer, the Assessing officer treated the purchase in the hands of the assessee as bogus purchases and made the addition. It was the submission that the said sheets were purchased and was also substantially consumed. It was the submission that as the seller did not respond to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, the addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. It was the submission that the purchases have also been included in the stock statement of the assessee and the AO disbelieved the said purchases without making necessary adjustment to the stock of the assessee, which is not permissible. It was the submission that if these purchases are not there, the assessee could not have done the work as is evident from the consumption mentioned in the stock register, therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) be deleted.
In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing officer and ld CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. The assessee has produced the stock statement and purchase details, which is as follows:
P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No.133/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
“
Thus, clearly, the stock statement shows the purchase of the materials in the stock register. On account of the said purchase of nearly 50.190 mtrs, the closing stock is 35.968 mtrs. If the said purchase is disbelieved, then the assessee should have negative stock but clearly, the Assessing Officer has accepted the stock statement of the assessee and has
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No.133/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19
not done tinkering with the same. This being so, only because the seller did not respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer on account of the said purchases, the addition should not be made treating it as bogus purchases of the assessee. This being so, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2024.
Sd/- (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 30/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Yukon Enterprises Pvt Ltd., C-1, Industrial Estate, Rourkela 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Rourkela 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4
