A.M. JALGAONWALA AGRO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE

आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 1, Nashik dated 13.02.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.

Assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of dealing in all types of pipes, agricultural implements etc. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.53,41,100/-. In this case, a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 21.11.2012 on the

business premises of the assessee wherein the assessee company had

admitted additional income of 1,30,00,000/- for the discrepancies with

regard to stock, cash and unaccounted transactions noted in the

impounded material found during the survey. The case was selected for

scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of Act vide

order dt.21.03.2016 determining the total income at Rs.1,84,52,810/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before

Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.13.02.2017 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-

1/25/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the

order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the

following grounds :

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- made by the A.O. without appreciating the said addition was not justified in law.

assessee had not disclosed the additional income of Rs.1,30,00,000/-

that was admitted during the survey in the return of income filed on

30.09.2013 for A.Y. 2013-14 and that assessee had retracted from the

said statement in its written submissions dated on 15.12.2015. i.e.,

three years after the survey. The submissions of the assessee of not

including the income declared during survey in the return of income

were not found acceptable by the AO. AO thus made addition of

Rs.1,30,00,000/- as additional income. Aggrieved by the order of AO,

assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide ex-parte order

dated 13.02.2017 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/25/2016-17) dismissed

the appeal of assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal

before us.

passed an ex-parte order and not on merits. He further submitted that

due to unavoidable circumstances, assessee could not appear before

Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that if given a chance, assessee undertakes to

appear before lower authorities and furnish all the required details to

substantiate its case. With respect to the addition of Rs.1.30 crore

made by AO, he submitted that assessee has not retracted the

declaration made during the survey but on the contrary had included

the income from the impounded material found during survey which has

resulted in the increase in net profit to 1.45% as compared to the

average net profits for last 5 years at 0.37%. He submitted that during

the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had verified the books of

accounts with reference to the impounded material and the

discrepancies that were not found verifiable were added to the income.

He submitted that addition of Rs.1.30 crore made by AO would therefore

amount to double addition of the same income. He therefore submitted

that assessee be granted one more opportunity to explain his stand.

Ld.D.R. on the other hand supported the order of AO and Ld.CIT(A) and

objected to Ld.A.R.’s prayer for 2nd innings.

record. The issue in the present case is with respect to addition of

Rs.1,30,00,000/- on account of additional income offered by the

assessee during the survey operation u/s 133A of the Act but not

included in the return of income as per the Revenue authorities. The

perusal of order of Ld.CIT(A) reveals that Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-

parte order without deciding the issue on merits. In view of the well

settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing

should be afforded to the parties and no party should be condemned

unheard, we are of the view that one more opportunity be granted to the

assessee company to present its case before the authorities. We

therefore restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the

issue on merits in accordance with law. Needless to state that Ld.CIT(A)

shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Assessee is also directed to promptly furnish all the details called for by

the authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to Ld.CIT(A),

we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds of the appeal raised by

the assessee. Thus, the grounds of assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 16th day of October, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 16th October, 2019. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-1, Nashik. Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. 4. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” / DR, ITAT, “B” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.