Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM)
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 24.1.2017 and pertains to A.Y. 2012-13. The grounds of appeal read as under :- A) Principles of natural justice violated
The Ld. C.I.T. Appeals erred in not furnishing the appellant the copy of the Remand Report for say of the appellant.
B) Addition on account of loans Rs.22,32,720/- U/s. 68 of the Act
The Ld. C.I.T. Appeals erred in facts and in law in upholding the order of the A.O. making an addition of Rs. 22,32,7207- as unexplained.
3. The Ld. ITO erred in not granting proper opportunity to the appellant to represent in the Remand proceedings and also erred in not issuing summons to the loan creditors to prove the genuineness of loans to the appellant.
2 M/s. Satyam Generic Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
4. In view of the above, the Appellant prays that your Honours hold that the addition under section 68 amounting to Rs. 22,32,720/- is uncalled for and hence, the same may be deleted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer has treated some of the loans obtained as unexplained credits as the confirmation thereof could not be received. Before learned CIT(A) assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had given very less time and proposed to submit the confirmation before the learned CIT(A). In terms of the provisions of Rule 46A, learned CIT(A) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer noted that learned CIT(A) in his remand has given very short time. He gave the creditors even shorter time to respond to the notice u/s. 133(6). The Assessing Officer informed learned CIT(A) accordingly. Learned CIT(A) noted that facts of the remand and noted that the assessee did not appear before him despite several opportunities. Hence, he confirmed the addition.
Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard learned departmental representative and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice.
Upon careful consideration, we note that the Assessing Officer has virtually given a few days notice for the creditors to respond to notice u/s. 133(6). In this view of the matter in our considered opinion proper time has not been given in this case. In our considered opinion learned CIT(A) should have acceded to the request of the Assessing Officer to give more time to the remand report. Hence, in the interest of justice remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer directed to complete the enquiry with respect of the unexplained creditors in dispute. Needless to add assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.
3 M/s. Satyam Generic Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 27.3.2019.