M/S. UNIDEEP FOOD PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 328/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 July 2019AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee failed to comply with the earlier direction to produce all loan creditors before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 45,29,020/- under the head 'unsecured loan'. In the first round, the matter was remanded for verification of loan genuineness and repayment by calling creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unsecured loans is justified when the assessee fails to produce creditors for verification of genuineness and repayment as per Tribunal's directions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota, AR
For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Hearing: 13/06Pronounced: 08/07

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.328/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12

M/s. Unideep Food Vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Processing (P) Ltd., D-7, Kedar Gouri Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAACU 8353 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S.K.Hota, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Date of Hearing : 13/06/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08/07/ 2019

O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 22.5.2017 for the assessment

year 2007-08.

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the

CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.45,29,020/- under

the head “ unsecured loan”.

3.

This is second round of appeal. In the first round, the

matter was remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with the

P a g e 1 | 3

ITA No. 328/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

direction to make a fresh assessment with the following

directions:

“… Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we reverse the finding of the CIT(A) and restore this matter to the file of the AO to verify the genuineness of the transaction. The AO is directed to verify whether the assessee has repaid this amount to all the persons stated in his accounts in various years by calling all the creditors. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify and if the assessee has already repaid the amount, it may be deleted as per law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.” 4. In pursuance to the direction of the Tribunal, the Assessing

Officer required the assessee to produce all the creditors with

evidence of payment. However, since the assessee failed to

produce the creditors, the Assessing Officer repeated the addition

as was done at the time of original assessment.

5.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer as

the assessee failed to comply with the direction of the Tribunal to

produce all the loan creditors.

6.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

7.

At the time of hearing, when asked by the Bench, why the

direction of the Tribunal was not complied with by the assessee, ld

A.R. of the assessee did not give any satisfactory reply. We find

that in the first round of proceedings, the Tribunal has directed

P a g e 2 | 3

ITA No. 328/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

the assessee to produce all the creditors before the Assessing

Officer to confirm with the evidences that the amount has been

repaid. But, the assessee has failed to produce all the creditors

before the Assessing officer, therefore, the addition was again

confirmed and was upheld by the CIT(A). In view of above facts,

we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and

dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 08/07/2019.

Sd/- sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Chandra Mohan Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 08/07/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Unideep Food Processing (P) Ltd., D-7, Kedar Gouri Apartment, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar

2.

The Respondent. ACIT, Corporate Circle 5th 1(2), floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →