Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 05.12.2017. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle
15(3)(1) Mumbai (in short DCIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide order dated 21.12.2016, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee and the additional evidences are as following: - “1. Copy of the authority letter.
Copies of the leger, invoices, return of income and bank statements of Ms. Perfect joint engineers.
Copies of the leger, invoices form 16A of Ms. Anurodh engineers.
Copies of the ledger, invoices, return of income and ledger of the Appellant in the books of Ms. Prama Instruments Pvt. Ltd.
5. copies of the ledger and invoices in the case of M/s Shree, Siddhivinayak Steel and a detailed reply filed by the said party before the Ld. AO pursuant to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act.
Copies of the ledger, invoices, Annexure-J and the status of the party on the sales tax website in the case of Ms. Gautam Engineering Ltd.
Copies of the bank statements of the appellant evidencing all payments made to the above mentioned parties through a banking channel.”
3. For this assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A) before us and raised the following grounds: - “1. The leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24. Mumbai erred in confirming the disallowance of' Rs. 89,47.195/- of purchases and labour charges made by the learned assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts and the law that section 68 of the Act has no role to play and it has no applicability at the threshold in the current factual matrix.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24. Mumbai erred in rejecting the additional evidences filed by the Appellant before him without appreciating the facts and submission of the Appellant.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai erred in rejecting the additional evidences tiled by the Appellant before him without the facts and submission of the Appellant under consideration.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24. Mumbai erred in rejecting the additional evidences filed by the Appellant on the conclusion that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity by the learned assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumhai failed to appreciate the fact that all the evidences including additional evidences submitted before him clearly substantiate the genuineness of the parties and transactions
Rs. 89,47,195/- made by the learned assessing officer.”
4. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to relevant Para of CIT(A) which read as under: - “It is worthwhile to note here that the show cause was issued on 0311.2016 and the then AR of the assessee represented before the AO on 10.11.2016 and finally the order was passed on 02 12.2016 The AO had given sufficient time to the assessee to submit the details and prove the genuineness of the transaction The assessee has not placed on record any fact or reasons that establishes that it was prevented by sufficient cause from submitting the details before the AO. Moreover, as mentioned above, the assessee has not even submitted the plea for considering the evidences u/s 46A as additional evidences. In light of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in considering the evidences submitted by the assessee in terms of Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962.”
5. According to the learned Counsel, these evidences are vital for deciding the issue. He narrated that the issue is disallowance of purchases and labour charges by the AO but actually addition made under section 68 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee wanted to explain the transactions of purchase and labour charges and it is not a cash credit. When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he fairly agreed that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO as the