Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Sarasu Chicken, a partnership firm engaged in trading live chicken, filed its return for AY 2017-18. A survey under Section 133A was conducted, leading the AO to make an addition of Rs. 3,45,78,111/- for suppressed sales based on impounded material. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting the assessee's failure to reconcile sales rates, and the assessee appealed to the Tribunal after a condoned delay of 385 days.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO and CIT(A) erroneously compared the sale rate of 'meat chicken' (from a sister concern's impounded documents) with the assessee's 'live chicken' sales rate. Since the CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documentary evidence presented by the assessee, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish all relevant documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition for suppressed sales by comparing the sale rate of meat chicken from a sister concern with the assessee's live chicken sales, without duly considering the assessee's evidence.
Sections Cited
143(3), 133A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 14.12.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 30.12.2019.
There is a delay of 385 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.
The assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of trading in chicken and filed its return of income for AY 2017–18 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,91,600/-. A Survey u/s. 133A of the Act, was conducted in the premises of assessee and the case was selected for scrutiny. The A.O after examination of impounded material found that the assessee has suppressed the sale and made additions Rs 3,45,78,111/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition for suppressed sales, holding that the assessee failed to reconcile the differences between the sales rate as per the Karapakkam Branch sales register and the impounded sales bills of the same branch.
Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) have considered the sale rate as per impounded JAYRAM folder, which pertains the sale rate of its sister concern Saraswati Broilers Pvt. Ltd., which deals in the meat of chicken, as against the rate of sale of live chicken, being undertaken by the assessee. The Ld AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the fact that meat yield from the live chicken is significantly lower than the live chicken rate. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the bills of Sarasu Chicken and the rate in
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld AR has argued that A.O/Ld CIT(A) have compared the sale rate of meat chicken recorded in impounded JAYRAM folder of sister concern Saraswati Broilers Pvt. Ltd. which deals with meat chicken, with the sale rate of live chicken of assessee company, which deals in live chicken. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the documentary evidence produced by the assessee in support of its claim. We accordingly restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and furnish all relevant documents and explanations before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 18th day of June, 2025 at Chennai.