M/S. UTKAL MINERALS,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 43/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 January 2020AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the AO made additions due to the assessee's inability to produce documents, and while the assessee provided some documents to the CIT(A), clarification was still needed. To meet the ends of justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision after accepting the assessee's explanation and verifying documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-2012. There was a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee's grounds of appeal related to additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) concerning rent compensation, unaccounted sales, and contract payments.

What were the issues?

Whether the authorities below properly considered the documentary evidence and explanations provided by the assessee regarding various financial transactions and additions made to the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Hearing: 16/01/2020Pronounced: 28/01/2020

Per L.P.Sahu, AM: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A), Cuttack, dated 29.07.2015 for assessment year 2011-2012. 2. As per the office note, there is a delay of 115 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed an application along with affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal. Ld. DR has no objection to condone the delay. We have gone through the application for codonation of delay supported with an affidavit filed by the assessee and found that there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and appeal is heard on merits.

2

3.

The assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal which read as under :-

1.

That the assessment made by the learned AO confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) without giving consideration to the written submissions filed and examining the points raised is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principle of natural justice and therefore the assessment is liable to be quashed. Case Laws :- a) A. Venkat Rao Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 64 (Ori) b) Gangaram Chapolia Vs. ITO, 187 ITR 594 (Ori)

2.

That the ledger copy of transaction between M/s. Utkal Minerals and Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd filed before the learned CIT(Appeals) should have been judiciously considered and accepted as true and correct in view of the facts are duly audited u/s 44 AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. and not doing so, the order has become against the principle of natural justice and nullity. [CIT Vs. Apollo Tyres, 255 ITR 273 (SC)]

3.

That the addition of Rs. 81,00,000/-made by the AO confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) paid towards rent compensation in accordance with the agreement produced in course of assessment proceeding should have been allowed by the authorities below.

4.

That the transaction of sale with M/s. Taurion Iron & Steels Co. (P) Ltd should have been accepted and should not have been double. The AO is not justified estimating NP @ 15% resulting an addition of Rs.3,94,690/- under the head unaccounted sale and the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the said addition.

5.

That the assessee did not receive contract payment of Rs. 2,25,001/- from M/s. Bagadiya Brothers during the relevant year therefore the learned AO is not justified in making addition of the said amount and the CIT(A) in confirming the same as the said transaction has been duly reflected in the accounts of the subsequent year.

6.

That other grounds if any will be urged at the time of hearing of appeal.

4.

At the outset, ld. AR before us submitted that the accounts of the assessee have duly been audited u/s.44AB of the Act and the assessee

filed the ledger copy of the transaction between M/s Utkal Minerals

and Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. before the CIT(A), however,

without considering the same, the CIT(A) affirmed the additions made

3 by the AO. It was also contended that the assessee has also filed profit

and loss account of M/s Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. for the F.Y.2011-2012, wherein the claim of expenditure has correctly been reflected. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the AO

and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.

5.

On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently opposed to the arguments

of ld. AR of the assessee and submitted that the assessee could not substantiate his claim providing any documentary evidence during the course of assessment proceedings. Even the assessee before the CIT(A)

could not clarify as to why M/s Triveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. has been taken the land on rent from the assessee rather than taking it from M/s

Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., if the land is already in lease to M/s

Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. Ld. DR also contended that the assessee was unable to clarify the transactions as claimed by him.

Therefore, both the authorities below have rightly disallowed the claim

of the assessee and the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.

6.

After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusing the entire material on record, we find that the AO made

additions on account of inability of the assessee to produce the documents as required by the AO during the course of assessment

proceedings. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed copy of lease

agreement made between the assessee and Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron (P)

4 Ltd. along with the profit and loss account of the above company. As per the CIT(A), the assessee could not clarify as to why M/s Triveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. has been taken the land on rent from the assessee rather than taking it from M/s Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., if the land is already in lease to M/s Sri Ganesh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. Before us, ld. AR submitted that both the authorities have not considered the explanation filed by the assessee and the documents produced before them. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and without going much into the merit of the case, to meet the end of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of AO to decide the claim of the assessee afresh after accepting the explanation of the assessee and verifying the documents available with the assessee to substantiate his claim. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal of the case. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28/01/2020. (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनांक Dated 28/01/2020 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

5 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीलाथी / The Appellant-

1.

M/s Utkal Minerals, C/o Late D.N.Mohanty, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack प्रत्यथी / The Respondent-

2.

ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack आयकि आयुक्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT,

5.

Cuttack गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Senior Private Secretary) ITAT Cuttack Bench, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →