SINGH TRADING COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ ायपीठ, चेई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,
‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
ी मनु कुमार ग र, यायक सदय एवं ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदय के सम
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 941, 942 & 943/Chny/2025
नधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18
Singh Trading Company,
834, Raheja Complex,
3rd Floor, Mount Road,
Chennai – 600 002. vs.
The ACIT,
Non-Corp. Circle 7(1)
Chennai.
[PAN: AAAFS-8685-H]
(अपीलाथ"/Appellant)
(#$यथ"/Respondent)
अपीलाथ" क% ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate.
#$यथ" क% ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT.
सुनवाई क% तार)ख/Date of Hearing
:
29.07.2025
घोषणा क% तार)ख/Date of Pronouncement
: 21.08.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
The assessee had filed three appeals against the orders of learned
Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.03.2025, for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-
18. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
:-2-: ITA. Nos:941, 942 & 943/Chny/2025
The brief facts of the case are as follows. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, which was reconstituted in the A.Y.2010-11, after the death of one of the partners in April 2009. The PAN of the old firm is AAAFS8685H. After the reconstitution of the firm, a new PAN ABUFS1001L was obtained, and the assessee was filing its return of income under this new PAN since A.Y.2010-11. Further, no returns of income were filed under the old PAN since A.Y.2010-11. The assessee, however, did not surrender its old PAN. For the various years under challenge, i.e., A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, a notice of reopening u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“Act”) was issued by the Assessing Officer(AO) on 24.03.2021, 23.03.2021 and 23.03.2021 respectively, to the assessee for the reason that the Bill of Entry for imports for assessable value of Rs.2,34,89,325/-, Rs.2,53,31,893/- and Rs.2,65,10,380/- respectively was found, however no return of income was filed by the assessee. These reopening notices were issued with respect to the old PAN. The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings had explained that owing to pending tax credit issues, the old PAN was not surrendered and that the bankers failed to note down the new PAN despite informing them of the new PAN. The assessee had also filed the audited financial statements, tax audit report as well as bank statement, in response to the notices u/s.142(1) pertaining to the new PAN. The Assessing Officer, however, proceeded to pass the assessment order for all the three assessment years u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.2,34,89,325/-, Rs.2,53,31,890/-, Rs.2,65,36,297/- respectively, u/s.69C as unexplained expenses. That apart interest income was also added to the tune of Rs.21,981/- for A.Y.2015-16 and Rs.25,917/- for A.Y.2017-18. Consequential demand was also raised to the tune of Rs.2,02,18,335/- for A.Y.2015-16 alone. There were nil demands for A.Y.2016-17 and A.Y.2017-18. The case of the Assessing Officer is that, under the old PAN no return of income was filed; copy of ITR filed and the taxes paid under the new PAN was also not provided to the Assessing Officer and that the new PAN does not lie within his juri iction and therefore, no document relating to the new PAN is available for examination. Consequently, the Assessing
:-3-: ITA. Nos:941, 942 & 943/Chny/2025
Officer proceeded to treat the Bill of Entry for imports as an unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (first appellate authority, hereinafter referred to as “FAA”). Before the FAA, the assessee submitted the copy of ITR filed under the new PAN, computation of total income, ledger account and invoices of purchases / imports, form 26AS and written submissions. The assessee reiterated its stand taken before the AO, that, the income was offered in the new PAN and the purchases / imports are all reflected in the books of accounts, which were also audited u/s.44AB. Hence, the Bill of Entry for imports is not unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The assessee had explained that for A.Y.2015-16, the gross total income that was offered to tax was Rs.33,33,071/-, for A.Y.2016-17, it was Rs.20,63,200/-, for A.Y.2017-18, it was Rs.21,55,900/-. However, the FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee and held that since the assessee never informed the