BAIDYABOOTI PHARMACY,BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 121/CTK/2024Status: HeardITAT Cuttack14 May 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of trade expenses to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce evidence in support of its claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged two additions before the CIT(A): Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 5,70,983/- as disallowance of expenses. The assessee could not properly represent its case before the CIT(A) due to staff changes.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A) for unexplained cash credit and disallowance of expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 14/05/2024Pronounced: 14/05/2024

O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.01.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059608317(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

It was the submission of the ld. AR that two additions are under challenge, one being credit of Rs.25 lakhs and the second being a disallowance of expenses of Rs.5,70,983/-. It was the submission that the evidences could not be produced before the ld. CIT(A) nor the assessee was able to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A) as the staff of the assessee who was looking after the matter before the ld. CIT(A) had left and the email addressed had to be changed. It was the prayer that the issues in this appeal should be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) and that the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings.

3.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objections.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that there are three additions, one being addition of Rs.32.58.163/- made u/s.69A of the Act, second being the addition of Rs.25 lakhs representing unexplained cash credit and third being the disallowance of trade expenses of Rs.5,06,784/-. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that though the assessee has not represented its case before the ld. CIT(A), he has been very fair in downloading the replies of the assessee filed before the AO and deleted the addition made u/s.69A of the Act on the basis of evidence that he found from the records. In respect of the additions under the head unexplained cash credit and disallowance of the trade expenses, admittedly, no evidence was placed before the ld. CIT(A). This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee opportunity to produce the evidence in support of his claim before the ld. CIT(A).

5.

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.

1.

(MANISH AGARWAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 14/05/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →