ORISSA FERRO TECHS,ODISHA vs. CIRCLE 1(1), ODISHA

It was the submission by the ld. AR that the assessee is a partnership firm, it has filed its return of income disclosing an income of Rs.31.22 lakhs and the assessment came to be completed wherein the total income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.3.84 crores. It was the submission that the additions were on account of four sundry creditors and on account of interest paid to one of the sundry creditors. Ld. AR drew our attention to the assessment order page 2 para 3, wherein the AO has provided a chart of the four sundry creditors. It was submitted by the ld. AR that in respect of AM Fincap Pvt. Ltd., the amount Rs.24 lakhs was in fact an advance for supply of materials. The ld. AR drew our attention to the letter dated 24.09.2012 addressed by AM Fincap Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee in regard to the purchase of iron ore fines. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the ledger account of both the assessee and AM Fincap Pvt. Ltd.. It was on this point, pointed out to the ld. AR that the payments have been made between 30.09.2012 and 23.10.2012 and till the year ending 31.03.2013 material has not been supplied though the contract terms provide for supply and payment as per the schedule. Ld. AR on this point was also asked to prove that the material has been supplied by the assessee to AM Fincap Pvt. Ltd. to which the ld. AR submitted that the evidence is not immediately available with him. In regard to the next sundry creditor being Manish Shyam Sharma for an amount of Rs.11 lakhs, the ld. AR drew our attention to page 63 of the paper book which is a copy of the ledger account of Manish Shyam Sharma, which showed opening balance as on 01.04.2012 at Rs.14 lakhs and closing balance as on 31.03.2013 at Rs.14 lakhs. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there must be a mistake in the audit report at para 24(a) Manish Shyam Sharma’s name has been shown at Rs.11 lakhs having been received during the year. Ld. AR was specifically asked as to whether the auditor of the assessee has clarified in respect of the said mistake, if any. To this, ld. AR submitted that he has not yet received any letter to such effect. It was then pointed out to the ld. AR as to what and how the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contentions of the assessee, the ld. AR drew our attention to para 5.1 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has taken a stand that “the bank account of all the above persons has also been provided which shows credit entry in cash in all the accounts just before the debit of the unsecured loan to the assessee”. It was the submission that the assessee has never provided the bank accounts of the creditors and all that the assessee has provided the confirmation letters along with PAN account numbers and addresses. It was further submitted that the AO also categorically has mentioned that the creditors have not responded directly to the AO. It was the submission that how the ld. CIT(A) has made the said statement in his order is not coming out of any of the evidence. Ld. AR further placed before us copies of the acknowledgements of three submissions along with evidences filed before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC through online portal. The same are extracted herein below :-

It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered any of the evidence produced by the assessee. It was then put to the ld. CIT-DR that the ld. CIT(A) having not discussed any of the written submission or evidences produced by the assessee and has recorded facts which are not supported by the evidences, the issues in this appeal would have to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case and after considering the evidence and written submissions filed before him by the assessee. To this, ld. CIT-DR did not raise any serious objections.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the sides. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed any of the written submissions as submitted by the assessee from where the ld. CIT(A) has obtained the bank account of the said creditors is not coming out of the evidences submitted by the assessee or from the assessment order. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. In the event that the ld. CIT(A) is in possession of any evidence which he proposes to use against the assessee, ld. CIT(A) shall provide such evidence to the assessee for his rebuttal.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/05/2024.