Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
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