ABHAYA KUMAR DASH,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK CHARGE, CUTTACK

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.186/CTK/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Abhaya Kumar Dash, Vs. Pr. CIT, Cuttack Bidhyadharpur, Naya Bazar, Cuttack-753004 स्थायी लेखा सं./PANNo. : ACHPD 4475 H (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 14/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Pr. CIT, Cuttack dated 14.03.2017 for the assessment year 2011-2012, on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That, the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter referred as "the Act"] is per se illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and has been passed in gross violation to the principles of natural justice ignoring and the written submission and argument placed before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Cuttack [Hereinafter referred as "the learned Pr.CIT"] and for which the order passed by the learned Pr.CIT is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 2. That, the learned Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act after taking into consideration of the confirmation letter submitted by the appellant as obtained from the customer to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer and for which the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue without having any contrary evidence on record and for which the order passed by the learned Pr.CIT by set asiding the assessment order

2 ITA No.186/CTK/2017 is illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 3. That, the order passed by the learned Pr.CIT without having any information whatsoever that the advance money received from the customers disclosed under the head current liabilities held to be bogus as no enquiry has been done by the learned Pr. Cit before set aside the order of the learned Assessing Officer and for which the order passed by the learned Pr.CIT is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 4. That, the learned Pr.ClT has passed the order ignoring the submission made by the appellant so far as the cost of litigation is concerned and for which the cost of litigation is to be borne by the Income-tax Department as the negligence if any on the part of the Assessing Officer the appellant should not be made to suffer. 5. That, the cost of litigation of appeal made before this Hon'ble Tribunal is to be borne by the Income-tax Department. 6. That, the appellant may add, alter, delete, withdraw or modify any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the matter with the leave of the Hon'ble ITAT.

manufacturing of fly-ash bricks machine & job works and filed his

return of income on 26.09.2012 for the assessment year 2012-2013

disclosing total income of Rs.7,88,270/-, which was processed

u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny

under CASS. Thereafter the AO framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of

the Act making addition of Rs.3,96,143/- on account of differential

amount, vide order dated 27.02.2015.

of the Act, set aside the assessment order of AO for fresh adjudication.

Against which the assessee has filed this appeal before the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal.

3 ITA No.186/CTK/2017 4. Ld. AR before us submitted that the AO has passed the order u/s

143(3) of the Act after taking into consideration of the confirmation

letter submitted by the assessee as obtained from the customer to the

satisfaction of the AO and for which the order passed by the AO cannot

be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue without having any

contrary evidence on record and for which the order passed by the

Pr.CIT by setting aside the assessment order is illegal and contrary to

the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed

and/or annulled.

entire material available on record, we find that the Pr. CIT in the

revision proceeding found that the AO has failed to examine the

genuineness of the advances received from the alleged customers and

accordingly, he directed the AO to reframe the assessment after proper

appreciation of facts. Thereafter on the direction of the Pr. CIT, Cuttack

in the revisonary order passed u/s.263 of the Act, the AO completed the

assessment u/s.143(3)/263 of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2017, a

copy of which is placed on record, wherein the AO called for the

information u/s.133(6) of the Act from all the parties and the same

were received by post in which he has disallowed a sum of

Rs.2,79,040/- on the impugned issue. On perusal of the same, it is clear

4 ITA No.186/CTK/2017 that in the earlier assessment proceeding, the AO had not made

enquiries properly with regard to the genuineness of the advances received from the alleged customers. Therefore, in our opinion, the Pr.

CIT was just and proper to set aside the assessment holding that the order passed by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in

absence of any proper appreciation of facts as well as proper enquiry on the part of the AO. We have also gone through the observations

made by the Pr. CIT and found that there is no necessity to interfere in the findings recorded by the Pr.CIT in directing the AO to reframe the

assessment. Accordingly, uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assessee.