KAPILESWARA MINING AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT 1(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BHUBANESWAR

आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru R.R.Reddy, Vice President (KZ)

ITA No.693/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 4.9.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2019-20/10288620 in the matter of assessment u/s.144 of the Act and ITA No.694/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 9.9.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC in the matter of penalty u/s.270A of the Act for the assessment year 2020-2021. 2. Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee has not received any notice from the ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, he could not present the case before the ld.

2 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.693 & 494/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2020-2021 CIT(Appeals). Ld AR submitted that even the assessment order has been passed considering the best judgment u/s.144 of the Act by making disallowance in respect of non-deduction of tax u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld AR submitted that the assessee has the reconciliation of the amount of Rs.65,06,607/- in regard to interest paid to others and deducted the tax at source. He submitted that the assessee has already deducted TDS on the interest payment of Rs.8,89,564/- and there is no obligation to deduct tax at source on payment of Rs.41,97,513/- as interest on loan taken from banks and delay in deposit of ESI and PF and GST. It was the submission that the balance amount of interest of Rs.14,19,530/- paid for delay in deposit of TDS inadvertently taken as deduction which is not admissible as business expenses. Hence, the same is taken as income in computation. He submitted that this aspect has not been considered by the AO, therefore, prayed to remit the matter back to the file of the AO for further verification and adjudication. 3. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there were several opportunities to the assessee but he failed to substantiate his case. Therefore, he pleaded to confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole grievance of ld CIT(A) is that the assessee has not filed any explanation or documentary evidence in support of the claim. It was the submission that the assessee has the reconciliation of the amount of Rs.65,06,607/- in regard to interest paid to others and deducted the tax at source. He submitted that the assessee has already deducted TDS on the interest payment of Rs.8,89,564/- and there is no obligation to deduct tax at source on payment of Rs.41,97,513/- as interest on loan taken from banks and

3 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.693 & 494/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2020-2021 delay in deposit of ESI and PF and GST. It was the submission that the balance amount of interest of Rs.14,19,530/- paid for delay in deposit of TDS inadvertently taken as deduction which is not admissible as business expenses. Hence, the same is taken as income in computation. If this reconciliation is taken into consideration, then, there will be no tax due from the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law based on the materials available on the record. The assessee is also directed to furnish the reconciliation statement as well as other materials to substantiate the case. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In regard to ITA No.694/CTK/2025, it is also noticed that the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order confirming the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act. As we have remitted the quantum issue to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty order is also restored to his file for consideration after deciding the quantum appeal as per law. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

4 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.693 & 494/CTK/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2020-2021

�दनांक Dated 23/12/2025 b.k.Parida , Sr.P.S.(OS) आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- Kapileswara Mining and Minerals Pvt Ltd., Plot No.783D, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar 2. ��थ� / The Respondent- DCIT-1(1), Bhubaneswar 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A), Bhubaneswar 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack