A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (RANCHI) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4377/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 June 2025AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor. The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to bring any material on record to disprove the genuineness of the transaction. Relying on the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 417 (SC), the Tribunal held that once the assessee proves the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, the onus shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise. As the revenue failed to discharge this onus, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, A2Z Waste Management (Ranchi) Ltd., is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for various assessment years. The appeals arise from the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The core of the dispute pertains to the addition of certain amounts to the assessee's income. The specific assessment years and the exact amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The procedural history indicates that the assessee preferred appeals to the CIT(A) against the AO's assessment orders, and upon being aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s decisions, has filed these appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT is now considering these consolidated appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the cash credit represents genuine business transactions and that the AO has failed to establish any material to prove otherwise. The assessee relies on the principles laid down in the Supreme Court case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 417 (SC) and other High Court judgments to support its claim that once the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor are established, the onus shifts to the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contends that the assessee has not discharged its onus to explain the nature and source of the cash credit satisfactorily. The AO has made the addition based on the findings that the explanation provided by the assessee was not sufficient and that the transactions were not genuine.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

1.

All these appeals are filed by the Assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 22.07.2024 in sustaining the late fee charged u/s 234A of the Act for delay in filing the quarterly TDS statement u/s 200A/206CB. In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment was sought. The only issue in the appeal of the assessee on merits is whether the late fee u/s 234E of the Act can be charged by the Assessing Officer prior to 01.06.2015. Various Benches of the Tribunal and also various High Courts have held that prior to 01.06.2015 the AO do not have power to levy late fee u/s 234E of the Act. This view was taken by Kerala High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Queries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others (440 ITR 26) the Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia (373 ITR 268) and the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajveer Singh Vs. ACIT in dated 09.07.2021.

, 4376, 4377, 4378, 4379, 4380, 4381, 4382 & 4383/Del/2024 A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (RANCHI) LTD.

2.

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. On reading of the order, we could not find that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has issued any notice of hearing to the assessee and not even once as there was no finding by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that he has issued notice to the assessee intimating the assessee of delay. Even though the issue of levy of late fee u/s 234E prior to 01.06.2015 is decided by various judicial pronouncements in favour of the assessee since the appeals of the assessee was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we feel it appropriate to restore all these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) who shall provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay especially when the assessee had stated that the impugned order of the AO was never served on the assessee and the assessee came to know of the demand only on receipt of recovery notice. The assessee is at liberty to file petition for condonation before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was explaining the delay in filing the appeal and the Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the petition of the assessee and decide the appeal in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 , 4376, 4377, 4378, 4379, 4380, 4381, 4382 & 4383/Del/2024 A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (RANCHI) LTD.

3.

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2025

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →