What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed written submissions and evidence before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the additions after considering the Assessing Officer's findings and the assessee's submissions.

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions were related to disallowance of double deduction of expenses on stock in trade and short disclosure of finished goods.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions without obtaining the Assessing Officer's comments on new evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings.

ACIT vs M/S. N.K.Bhojani Private Limited… | ITAT Cuttack 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Bibekanand Mohanty, AR

For Respondent: Shri Sood Kidwai, CIT DR

1 ITA No.244/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.244/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

ACIT, Corporate Circle - Vs. N.K.Bhojani Pvt Ltd., Plot 1(2), Bhubaneswar. No.52-A, 42, 43 & 44, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar

PAN/GIR No.AAACN 6090 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Bibekanand Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Sood Kidwai, CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 30 /01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30 /01/ 2018

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the

CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 24.3.2017 for the assessment year 2010-

2011.

Following grounds of appeal are raised by the Revenue:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in law as well as on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 6,11,91,779/- by way of disallowance of double deduction of expenses incurred on cost of stock in trade.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in law as well, as on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 18,11,820/-towards short disclosure of finished goods (Iron ore fines).

3 ITA No.244/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

Before us, ld D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has deleted the

additions on the basis of materials filed by the assessee before him, which

were not furnished during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the

order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Contra, ld A.R. of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. The ld D.R.’s contention

that the assessee has filed written submissions and all material evidences

before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) should have called a Remand Report

from the Assessing Officer on the specific issues. Whereas ld A.R.

submitted that the CIT(A) has considered the information which was also

filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment

proceedings and the Assessing Officer has not given specific findings

except making additions. We found that the assessee has given written

submissions in the appellate proceedings substantiating the grounds on

the claim of double deduction on cost of stock in trade, shortage of

finished goods, shortage of closing stock and coal fines. The Assessing

Officer has made a detailed observation on the disputed issues and the

CIT(A) after considering the findings of the Assessing Officer and the

submissions has unilaterally dealt on the additions and granted relief.

The contention of ld A.R. that there is no new evidence filed whereas ld

D.R. supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the

CIT(A) should have called for the comments of the Assessing Officer on

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. N.K.BHOJANI PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments