GAJANAN AGROFEEDS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR-1 (2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 298/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2022AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the case to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the case de-novo after allowing the assessee to file all relevant details and explanations.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT concerned additions made by the AO under Section 68 for unsecured loans and disallowances on fixed assets and depreciation. The CIT(A) had rejected additional evidence filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in rejecting additional evidence and making additions/disallowances without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR
Hearing: 13/09/2022Pronounced: 29/09/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune dated 17.01.2020for the Assessment Year 2014-15 arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances in the case and in law the lower authorities erred in rejecting the additional evidences filled under section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 without realizing the fact that such additional evidences ought to have been admitted as it goes to the root cause of issue and therefore, prayer is made for admission of additional evidences.

2. On the facts and the circumstances in the case and in law the lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs.86,09,000/- being unsecured loans from sister concern by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by rejecting the submissions made in this regard and also additional evidences submitted.

A.Y. 2014-15 Gajanan Agrofeeds P Ltd., [A]

3. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower authorities erred in making the disallowance of Rs.45,08,240/- on account of addition to fixed assets without realizing the fact that this sum represents addition to fixed asset and same is not claimed as expenses in Profit & Loss Account. Therefore, entire addition deserves to be deleted.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower authorities erred in making disallowance of Rs.61,236/- being depreciation claimed on fixedasset of Rs.4,08,240/- the addition deserves to be deleted.” 2. The ld.Authorised Representative (ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had not admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The ld.AR submitted that the case may be set-aside either to the ld.CIT(A) or AO to consider the submissions of the assessee.

3.

The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Lower Authorities.

4.

There was a delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. The Director of the assessee Mr.Yashpal Sunil Pote, filed affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The last date for filing appeal was 16.03.2020 and from 23rd March, 2020 Covid Pandemic Lockdown was announced. Due to the Lockdown and subsequent disturbance aroused due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the assessee could not file appeal in time. We have considered the affidavit and are of the opinion that there was reasonable sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

A.Y. 2014-15 Gajanan Agrofeeds P Ltd., [A]

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In the assessment order, the AO has made addition under section 68 of Rs.86,09,000/- and Rs.4,69,476/- as disallowance. The ld.AR filed paper book containing 148 pages. The ld.AR submitted that the said paper book was filed before the ld.CIT(A) as additional evidence along with prayer for admitting additional evidence. However, vide para 4 of the order, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the admission of additional evidence. The ld.DR has not disputed the fact that the paper book was filed before the ld.CIT(A). In this case, there is addition under section 68 of unsecured loan claimed to have been obtained from following persons:- 1. Sunil Pote, Director 2. Axis Trading Co. P Ltd., 3. Pearl Biofuel P Ltd., 4. Rasex Traders P Ltd., 6. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not file any details regarding the impugned unsecured loans, therefore, the AO made addition under section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed paper book as additional evidence before the ld.CIT(A). The said paper book which has been filed before us contains loan confirmation of Rasex Traders P Ltd., Pearl Biofuel P. Ltd., Axis Trading Co. P Ltd. It also contains Income Tax Returns and Audit Reports of the said lenders. Assessee also filed copies of purchase bills for the machinery as the AO had disallowed depreciation. All

A.Y. 2014-15 Gajanan Agrofeeds P Ltd., [A] these evidences go to the route of the addition. Therefore, in the interest of the justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity shall be given to the assessee to explain his case. Accordingly, the case is set-aside to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to file all relevant details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the case de-novo after giving opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →