Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Deox, filed its return for AY 2015-16. A mismatch was found between the custom duty paid as per the P&L account and the AIR information, leading to an addition to income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 16-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting it was not inordinate or intentional. As the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the addition made solely on AIR information without corroborative evidence is justifiable.
Sections Cited
254(1), 143(1), 271(1)(c), 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
B.N. Industries DCIT – Circle – 41(4)(1) KautilyaBhavan, G-Block 52/53, Samita Complex BKC, BandraKurla complex Andheri Kurla Road Vs Bandra (East) – 400051 Sakinaka, Andheri (East) -400072 Maharashtra Maharashtra PAN: AABFB8956B (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented by : Shri Himanshu GandhiCA Department Represented by : Shri Vijay Kr. G. Subramanyam, Sr.DR Date of Conclusion of hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement of Order : 30.04.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
The appeal by the assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) / ADDL / JCIT(A)– 1, Jaipur dated 11.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal and without condoning the few days delay in filling appeal due to reasons beyond control ofassessee Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 133530 on account of mismatch in payment of customs duty as per appellant and AIR Report by treating the same as unaccounted receipt. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.
B.N. Industries Ground 5. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of Aluminium Deox, used in steel industry for the deoxidation. Assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 08.12.2015 declaring income of Rs.23,47,180/-. Initially return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Lateron, it was selected for scrutiny. During assessment the Assessing Officer noted that as per Profit and Loss account assessee as paid custom duty of Rs. 1,49,55,881/-. However, as per AIR information assessee paid custom duty of Rs. 1,50,89,411/-. Thus, there is a difference of Rs.1,33,530/-. The assessee was asked to furnish explanation vide show-cause notice dated 29.11.2017. The Assessing Officer noted that no explanation was furnished by the assessee. Thus the difference of mismatch of Rs.1,33,530/- was added to the income of the assessee as unaccounted receipt in the assessment order dated 30.11.2017.
3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 16.02.2018. In the statement of facts the assessee stated that in response to show cause notice the assessee furnished details of custom duty paid of Rs. 1,49,55,881/- and made a request to provide the details of information wherein custom duty paid was shown at Rs.1,50,89,411/-. The Assessing Officer not provided any such details and made addition of difference on account of reconciliation. The Ld.CIT(A) recorded that as per Form No.35 the assessment order was received on 30.11.2017 while appeal was filed on 16.02.2018 which is beyond 30 days’ B.N. Industries time period for filing appeal before ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) in Para No. 4.6 of his order noted that assessee submitted the delay was due to the circumstances out of their control. Such explanation of assessee was not accepted as a sufficient cause and thereby delay was not condoned. Resultantly, appeal was also dismissed as unadmitted. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal.
4. I have heard the submissions of Learned Authorised Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee and Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the revenue. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that assessment order dated 30.11.2017 was served upon the assessee only on 01.01.2018. Such fact was clearly mentioned in Column No.2 of Form No.
The appeal was filed on 16.02.2018 thus, there was a 16 days’ delay only in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing merits of the case, though the assessee has furnished complete details on merit. In the submissions dated 18.06.2019, the assessee explained that assessee asked for the copy of AIR information for reconciliation. The assessee also furnished note on mismatch in custom duty. The assessee stated that during the relevant previous year the assessee paid custom duty of Rs.1,45,46,246/- and Rs.4,44,962/- as a custom duty paid in the relevant previous year for which purchases is booked in Financial Year 2015-16. The custom duty as per AIR of Rs.1,50,89,411/- is a consolidated figure. The Assessing Officer has not given bifurcation of date wise figure. The assessee has produced all the relevant detailsof import purchases and custom duty paid and also furnished all the details, the addition so made is bad in law. The addition is made for B.N. Industries the want of corroborative evidences. Additions solely on AIR information without any corroborative evidences is not justifiable. On the alleged delay of 16 days, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the delay was not inordinate or intentional rather the assessee is serious in contesting the case onmerit. No specific show-cause notice by ld.CIT(A) on the issue of delay was issued prior to dismissal of appeal. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that there dispute was among the partners as some of the family members separated from the firm, so due to family dispute delay of 16 days occurred in taking decision for filing first appeal. The ld AR of the assessee prayed that delay in filing appeal may be condoned and the matter may be decided on merit.
5. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the revenue, on the delay of 16 days before ld. CIT(A), he submits that no reasonable explanation was given by the assessee. On merit, Sr. DR for the revenue submitted that no reconciliation was given despite repeated opportunities. Even now, the assessee has not furnished complete bifurcation /reconciliation of custom duty paid.
6. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, I shall consider the issue of delay before ld.CIT(A). I find that there was only 16 days, though assessee has not specifically brought the specific cause for condonation of delay. However, keeping in view the delay is not inordinate therefore, considering the contention of Ld. AR of the assessee the delay in filing appeal is not inordinate or intentional, the delay before ld. CIT(A) is condoned. Since ld. CIT(A) has not given his finding on merit, moreover, the Assessing Officer has B.N. Industries also made addition on account of reconciliation of custom duty. Assessing Officer made addition solely on the basis of AIR information without sharing such information with assessee. Thus, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide copy of information to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide complete details of custom duty paid during the year or any other custom duty if paid during the said period for purchases booked in Financial Year 2015-16, if any. The Assessing Officer accordingly directed to pass order after providing details to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th April, 2025.