SHREE RADHA SARVESHWAR LAMINATES PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and information mentioned in the affidavit, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of HDPE woven bags, HDPE Fabrics and HDPE Tarpoline. The Assessee has filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 22.09.2021 disclosing a total income of Rs. 5,92,380/-. The assessee’s case was reopened u/sec. 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which had conducted an investigation into the activities of M/s.Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee was identified as a beneficiary in respect of the STR(s) referred in the investigation report. Accordingly, the Asseseing Officer(A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec. 148 of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee has filed return of income on 22.09.2011 and the A.O has completed the assessment u/sec.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 30.11.2018 accepting the returned income. 4.Subsequently, on perusal of the records and assessment order, Pr.CIT found that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO dated 30.11.2018 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and accordingly after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Pr.CIT passed the revision order u/sec. 263 of the Act dated 01.03.2021 with a directions to the AO to re-assess the income of the assessee afresh after examining the details and other issues. In compliance with the directions, the AO has issued notice u/sec. 142(1) of the Act requesting the assessee to furnish bank statement, date-wise purchase and sales. The AO further called for the details of bank statements and also other relevant documents in respect commodity trading but there was no compliance. Therefore, the AO made addition of unexplained credits of Rs. 12,76,000/-u/sec. 68 of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.18,68,380/- and passed the assessment u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022. 5. Aggrieved by the order, assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Whereas Ld.CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statements of facts, findings of the AO and submissions but confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed the appeal before the Honble tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O overlooking the factual aspects and the documents filed in support of the claim. Further the Ld.AR emphasized the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before the CIT(A) were not dealt by the CIT(A).The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the case with the evidences .Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 7.Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO u/sec. 68 of the Act without considering the material evidence filed during the appellate proceedings. Ld.AR further submitted that assessee has complied with notices issued and submitted the bank statements and relevant details. When a query was raised to the Ld. AR regarding the evidences furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). In response, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed application before CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence in support of the case. The Ld. AR demonstrated the statement/ details furnished vide e-acknowledgement containing various details and documents, including contract receipts and material information relating to the parties concerned. Whereas on perusal of the CIT(A) order, there is no finding on this issue that the assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidence. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances and evidences, the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences play a vital role in decision making. Accordingly, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and to meet the ends of justice, restore the disputed issues along with the evidences to the file of the jurisdictional assessing officer to verify and adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th October, 2026. PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 13th October, 2026 vr/- आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, नागपूर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////