ANTARES LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MULUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

In the instant case, the Assessee has raised following issues:

We observe that though in order to discharge the prima facie onus cast upon the Assessee, the Assessee before the authorities below, has filed the relevant documents, such as copy of invoices with regard to FQUBE, copy of bill of entry and corresponding documents qua FQUBE , copy of e- mail communications between the Assessee and such company, copy of ledger of FQUBE in the books of the Assessee, copy of sale register, copy of trade receivable and copy of ledger of bad debts written off for the assessment year under consideration. However, it is a fact that such company despite issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act has not responded and on persuasion by the Assessee and/or making many efforts made by the Assessee, such as, issuing multiple correspondences and visiting the office of such company. The Assessee has also filed a complaint with Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Counsel (MSEFC), who vide letter dated 25.02.2020 directed such company to release the payment of the Assessee however, all efforts went in vain and/or yielded no fruitful result and therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Assessee written off such amount of Rs. 5,88,370/- as bad debts.

From the documents produced by the Assessee before us, it prima facie appears that the Assessee prima facie discharged its onus cast u/s. 68 of the Act.

Further, it is also the mandate of the law, as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 5292 to 5294 of 2003), as under: -

We further observe that in the case of Ritika Kumbhat Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA no. 1017/JP/2024 decided on 09-01-2025, the Hon’ble Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has also dealt with the issue/case, wherein the AO has made the addition on account of sundry debtor’s u/s. 69A of the Act. The Hon’ble Bench ultimately deleted such addition by observing that the amount of sundry debtors recorded in books of accounts is not any money bullion, jewelry or any other valuable article and therefore does not qualify as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. For brevity and ready reference, the concluding part of the order is reproduced herein below:

Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, we are inclined not to sustain the addition of Rs.5,88,370/- made as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, and therefore the same is deleted.

Coming to 2nd issue, which pertains to non-adjudication of the issue related to brought forward losses of Rs.18,29,100/-, we observe that the AO in the assessment order by observing “that the Assessee has claimed brought forward losses of Rs.22,16,818/- and the CPC vide intimation order dated 30.11.2021 u/s. 143(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2020-21 allowed to carry forward the losses to the tune of “Rs.2,98,581/-”, restricted the brought forward loss to Rs.2,98,581/- however, held that the balance of Rs.19,18,237/- to be adjusted in the income for the year under consideration.

Therefore, the Assessee being aggrieved with the disallowance of such amount, claimed before the ld. Commissioner that brought forward losses of Rs.18,29,100/- cannot be disallowed.

We observe that it is a fact, as rightly disputed by the ld. AR that the ld. Commissioner failed to adjudicate such claim of the Assessee and therefore, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant issue to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, Assessee appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.