INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD, KUDAL vs. SHRI RAJENDRA DEWOO NAIK, SINDHUDURG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 751/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2023AY 2013-147 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be treated as an aggrieved party when the CIT(A) had relied on a remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer which supported the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of sundry creditors and unsecured loans. The CIT(A) had held that the genuineness of the trade creditors was not in doubt and that the unsecured loans were genuine.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions on account of sundry creditors and unsecured loans when the Assessing Officer's own remand report supported the assessee's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 24.05.2023Pronounced: 25.05.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013- 2014, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2022-23/1044643753(1), dated 12.08.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The Revenue raise the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 1) “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of sundry creditors holding that the genuineness of the trade creditors does not appear to be in doubt. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the fact that in none of the cases in the remand report the AO has stated that he has examined the creditworthiness of the creditor. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the additions in respect of unsecured loans taken by the appellant considering them to be genuine. 5) For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.”

3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s sole substantive ground in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)'s action reversing assessment findings adding unsecured loans and sundry creditors of Rs.97,46,168/- and Rs.1,90,15,648/-; respectively, as unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the Act. The NFAC’s findings to this effect read as under :

3 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 4 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 5 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 6 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022

4.

Suffice to say, it has come on record that the NFAC has followed the Assessing Officer’s remand report dated 29.05.2019 itself that the impugned addition of Rs.2,87,61,816/- is not warranted since the latter authority had duly verified all the relevant facts in the remand proceedings. The Revenue is fair enough in submitting a copy of this clinching remand report before us. That being the case, we conclude in light of B. Jayalakshmi vs. ACIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) and CIT vs. DM Purnesh [2020] 426 ITR 169 Kar.) that the Revenue could hardly be treated as an aggrieved party in case of a favourable remand report submitted before the CIT(A). We accordingly find no merit in the Revenue’s above substantive grounds. The same stand rejected. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

7 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →