Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH
Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member:
The appellant, M/s. VSR Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter alia that :- “1. The order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax is cryptic, invalid and bad in law and the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. at 2 M/s. VSR Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,80,000/- by treating the said sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- credited in Bank A/c as Income of the Appellant whereas the same was just a realization of past years income received in the Assessment Year in question. Also the learned A.O. failed to consider that the addition of the said entries as cash credit in the hands of the Appellant company shall result in double taxation as the company has already accounted for the same in his books of accounts in the relevant year as interest receivable account.
The learned A.O. and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact that bank statements given by the bank cannot be treated as books of accounts of the Assessee.
4. The Id. Lower authorities had not given adequate opportunity to the Assessee to explain the entry of Rs.1,80,000/- in the bank account, . Hence the said addition is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The Assessee craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are: assessee’s return of income filed at (–) Rs.40,975/- was subjected to scrutiny by way of issuance of notice under section 143(2), 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) along with questionnaire and in response thereto assessee filed various details from time to time. Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that two entries of Rs.90,000/- each (total amount of Rs.1,80,000/-) in the bank statement of Dhanalaxmi Bank, Fort, Mumbai dated 21.06.2012 and 23.06.2012. The AO proceeded to hold that in the absence of specific explanation by the assessee the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- is added to the income of the assessee. The AO thereby framed the assessment at the total income of Rs.1,39,025/- under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.
3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has upheld the addition made by the AO by 3 M/s. VSR Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.
This appeal was instituted on 10.08.2021 thereafter none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notices were sent to the assessee for 03.03.2022, 20.04.2022, 13.06.2022, 28.07.2022, 01.09.2022 & 29.09.2022 through registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) not received back served/unserved. Since period of more than one month has already elapsed the notices sent to the assessee are presumed to have been served, but the assessee has not preferred to put in appearance to prosecute this appeal. Consequently, the Bench has decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of documents available on record with the assistance of the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue.
I have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon.
Bare perusal of the order passed by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that both at the level of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) issue has not been analysed both from legal as well as factual aspect, which is apparent from the findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), extracted for ready perusal as under: “I have considered the appellant submission and do not find any merit in it. The A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings has given adequate opportunities to the appellant for providing details but appellant has not provided sufficient details or evidence to substantiate the said claim. Thereafter the assessing officer has passed a detailed and speaking order. 4 M/s. VSR Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Hence, A.O has rightly disallowed this amount. Hence addition of the AO is confirmed, and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on this ground. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.”
In para 2 of the assessment order, the AO has categorically mentioned that the assessee through its authorized representative had submitted various details from time to time, but the AO failed to discuss the same in its order rather straightway jumped to the conclusion that no specific requisition has been filed by the assessee, hence addition of Rs.1,80,000/- is made. So the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the assessment proceedings for the sake of disposal only without discussing the fact touching merits of the decision made in this case. So to impart the justice and to decide the issue once for all and to curtail the multiplicity of proceedings, I am of the considered view that file is required to be remitted back to the AO to decide the issue afresh on merits after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2022.