VIDHI INDUSTRIES,MURUD LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of EPC contractor as well as trading in industrial goods. It filed its return of income on 31.12.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,46,59,180/-. The 2 case was selected for scrutiny on account of low net profit shown by certain specified business which involves examination of business expenses. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) along with a questionnaire was also issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed certain details. From the various details / information furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown the amount against one of the Sundry Creditors i.e. Jilani Transport at Rs.27,37,414/-. However, the Ledger account of the said party was showing the amount at Rs.17,84,016/-. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, made addition of Rs.9,53,398/- to the total income of the assessee.

Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed certain details in shape of additional evidence by invoking the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the request of the assessee for admission of the additional evidences and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to some inadvertent error on the part of the accountant of the assessee firm, complete ledger account of the assessee could not be given before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that the additional evidences go to the root of the matter. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC instead of becoming hyper technical should have admitted the additional evidences and decided the issue on merit. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. The only issue to be adjudicated in the instant appeal is regarding the admissibility of additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by invoking the provisions of Rule 46A. We find the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC while rejecting the admission of additional evidences held that no sufficient cause appears to admit them as additional evidence under Rule 46A. He further held that even if the documents were to be considered in the interest of justice, it appears that there are no invoices or bills to corroborate the second ledger account of M/s. Jilani Transport. According to him, the assessee failed to discharge its 4 onus of explanation regarding the addition alleged by the Assessing Officer. In our opinion, since the additional evidences filed by the assessee go to the root of the matter for deciding the issue, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have admitted the additional evidences and then should have given a finding on merit of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to admit the additional evidences and decide the issue as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar //// More More Date: 2026.10.15 17:24:31 +05'30'