ITO WD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS & STEEL COMPANY P LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 207/RAN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2018AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have waited for the remand report from the AO before deciding the appeal. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining the remand report.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition made under Section 68. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal without waiting for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made under Section 68 without obtaining a remand report from the AO. The issue also involves the consideration of fixed asset sales and depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI

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

For Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Hearing: 28.05.2018Pronounced: 30.05.2018

Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A),

Jamshedpur, dated 25.04.2016, for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the matter was called for hearing, however, an adjournment application has been filed by the assessee seeking adjournment on the ground that due to some

medical ailment he could not attend the hearing, which in our opinion, is not a plausible one, therefore, the Bench decided to dispose off the appeal

after considering the submissions of ld. DR.

2

3.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs.2,63,15,090/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s68 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering fixed Assets sales figure mentioned in the Depreciation chart is part of Books of Accounts of the Assessee.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in not giving extension of time to the Assessing Officer vide his letter F.No.ITO/W2(1)/JR/R.REPORT/2015-16 DATED 28.03.2016 for furnishing Remand Report as desired by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Ingots and filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 30.09.2009 with total income of Rs.Nil.

Subsequently, the case has been reopened on 27.03.2014 u/s.147 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee requested

to treat the original return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act as its return

of income. Thereafter the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act and assessed total income at Rs.2,63,15,090/- and passed order

u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 31.03.2015. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings the assessee argued

the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and the findings of AO, allowed the appeal of the assessee.

3

6.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal

before the Tribunal.

7.

Ld. DR before us submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,63,15,090/- made u/s.68 of the Act. Ld DR further

submitted that the CIT(A) has not waited till the remand report received

from the AO, therefore, prayed for restoring the order of AO

8.

We heard the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the sole matrix of the disputed issue is with respect to the deleting the addition made u/s.68 of the Act and also the depreciation.

The contention of ld. DR that the CIT(A) is not justified in not waiting for the remand report received from the AO. We on perusal of the order of CIT(A)

found that the CIT(A) has forwarded the submissions made by the assessee to the AO but till 11th April, 2016 the remand report has not been received by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) further relied on the judicial decision

and allowed the appeal of the assessee. We are unable to understand as to why the CIT(A) has not waited when the request was sent for remand

report from the AO which should be incorporated in the order while

deciding the issue. Considering the principle of natural justice, we remit the entire disputed issue to the file of CIT(A), who shall examine and verify and pass a speaking order after receiving the remand report from the AO and the assessee shall be provided adequate opportunity of hearing.

Accordingly, the ground of appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical

purposes.

4

9.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/05 /2018 (N.S.SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated 30/05/2018 Prakash Kumar Mishra , Sr. Ps Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.

The Appellant – ITO Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur

2.

The Respondent – M/s Om Dayal Ingots & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd Madhu Vatika M.E.School, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur

3.

The CIT(A) concerned

4.

CIT , concerned

5.

DR, ITAT, Ranchi

6.

Guard file.

BY ORDER,

//// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →