SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 5. Considering the facts and reasons for delay as explained in the aforesaid condonation petition by the assessee, which are confronted to the other side i.e., Ld. CIT-DR, on perusal of the same, we find substance in the request of the assessee, thus, being delay on account of justifiable reasons, we find it appropriate to condone the delay of 35 days involved in for the AY 2014-15. The delay in the other appeals in ITA No. IT(SS)A No.14/RPR/2024 (0 days), ITA No. 514(35 days), ITA No. 515(35 days), ITA No. 516(35 days) & ITA No. 517/RPR/2024 (35 days) are also observed to be on account of similar reasons, therefore, the same are also allowed for adjudication with condonation of delay.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 7. First, we shall be taking up for AY 2014-15 as the lead case to decide the issues raised therein by the assessee, which contains all the issues to cover the grounds raised in the remaining appeals. Thus, our observations and decision in ITA No.513/RPR/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the identical / common original as well as additional grounds raised by the assessee in the remaining appeals.

and additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in for AY 2014-15 are as under:

1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order.

2. For that, the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 153A is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

3. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have applied a reasonable G.P rate as against the G.P rate of 8% applied by the A.O. on undisclosed sales, thereby, wrongly confirming the addition of Rs.44,78,935/- over and above declared G.P. of Rs.74,64,891/- in the return filed u/s 153A.

4. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,34,30/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged commission @ I% of the alleged undisclosed sale.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 6. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the Additional grounds of appeal in 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

9. At the very beginning of the hearing, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the issues in the aforesaid appeals of the assessee for AY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 are common and identical. A chart showing the nature of additions along with quantum in the respective 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur assessment years has been placed before us for the sake of reference and clarity, the same is culled out as under:

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 10. The brief facts of the case as reiterated, are that the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. company engaged in the business of Iron and Steel. A Search & Seizure Action u/s 132 was conducted on the business and residential premises of Sarthak Group of cases along with the assessee in present case on 26.11.2019. Consequently, assessment proceedings u/s 153A are initiated by issuance of notice on 25.01.2021. In response, assessee furnished necessary replies, submissions to the queries raised by the ld. AO. After deliberations the assessment was culminated by the Ld. AO by assessing the income of the assessee with certain additions, extracted from the assessment order, as under:

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 11. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but was unsuccessful in absence of representation before the First Appellate Authority, wherein the appeal of assessee is dismissed after due deliberations at length on the findings by Ld. AO based on material available before Ld. CIT(A), considering the merits of the issues.

14 Additional Ground No. 1: Challenging the validity of consolidated / common order for AY 2011-12 to 2019-20 in violation of mandate of section 153D of the Act.

14.1 On this issue, as per the application for admission of additional ground, the contention raised by the assessee was that the consolidated approval granted under section 153D is not in the manner in consonance with the law. It is contended that the assessment framed / the demand raised for 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority.

14.2 On this issue, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee shall not be admitted, as the additional ground should only be for the issues raising the question of law where it is necessary to consider that question to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Whereas in present case the issue raised does not constitute any question of law, which is necessary to assess the tax liability of the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR placed her reliance on the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs ADIT, CPC reported in (2024) 164 taxmann.com 498 (Ahd. Trib.), dated 16.07.2024, while dealing with such an objection by the department, the tribunal has held as under:

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in that case the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from facts as found by the authorities below. The Court further held that the question of law may be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Thus, it is clear from this decision that any question of law may be allowed to be raised only in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. So far as the correct assessment of the tax liability in this case is concerned, the issue involved in this case is already settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra) and the grounds taken by the assessee on the merits of the case stand dismissed. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the submission of the Revenue that this is not a fit 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur case where the legal grounds as raised by the assessee are relevant to consider the question of correct assessment of tax liability of the case. The only objective of the assessee behind raising these legal grounds is to obviate the correct tax liability. Nevertheless, since the issue of limitation and natural justice, while processing the return, has been raised in the legal grounds, we deem it proper to consider these grounds on merits as well.

14.3 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the case law relied upon by the revenue. As in the case referred to by the Ld. CIT-DR, the issue raised under additional ground was also covered by certain legal grounds by the assessee, therefore, those are dealt with separately, whereas the issue in present case has been decided by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur in a recent decision in the case of Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon Vs. ACIT, Central-2, Raipur in & 6 /RPR/2024 dated 26.12.2024, wherein the findings of Tribunal are as under: 7.4 Regarding additional ground no. 1 & 2 in for AY 2013-14, raised by the assessee challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) and approval u/s 153D, stating that the order of assessment and approval are granted under a combined / consolidated order and combined / common approval is not in accordance with the mandate of law prescribed under the impugned sections of the Act. We do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the assessee, as the issue is covered by the observations of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1, Raipur, TAXC No.76/2024, dated 10.04.2024.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 7.5 The Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order, after deliberating upon the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range Central, Raipur, had observed, that as the A.O. in the case before them had obtained a prior approval of the Jt. CIT, therefore, the mandate of Section 153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter granting the approval revealed the subjective satisfaction that was arrived at based on the documents that were produced before the Jt. CIT. It was further observed, that on a perusal of the language of the approval letter, it cannot be presumed that there was no application of mind as the approval need not be a detailed assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court after pressing into service Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed.

7.6 As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court had looked into the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur and had rejected the assessee’s claim that the said approval was granted without application of mind by the latter, therefore, we respectfully follow the same.

7.7 Accordingly, as the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide letter dated 16.12.2016 marked as F.No.Jt.CIT(C)/RPR/153D/2016-17/361 (copy placed before us) had, inter alia, granted the approval in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, therefore, we, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no merit in the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR, thus, reject the same. The validity of combined / consolidated assessment order, therefore, also acceptable following the analogy drawn in the case of Hitesh Golecha (supra). Thus, the additional ground of appeal 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 14.4 Respectfully following the decision in the aforesaid case, wherein a view has been formed by us, which is duly supported by the principle laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional HC, vide judgment in the case of Hitesh Golecha vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, TAXC No.76/2024, dated 10.04.2024, therefore, we are inclined to follow a view adopted by us, which in absence of any further clarification or any decision contrary to the aforesaid decision by any higher forum i.e., by the Hon’ble Apex Court, cannot be deviated. Under such circumstances, we do not find any substance in the additional ground raised by the assessee, thus, we dismiss the same.

15.1 As there was no submission by the assessee before us on the aforesaid issues to substantiate, that how the order passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority and Ld. AO are not in accordance with the mandate of law, we, therefore, do not find any substance in such contentions raised by the assessee in ground no. 1 & 2 of the present appeal, accordingly, the same therefore, are dismissed being bereft of merits.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 16. Ground No. 3: Regarding confirmation of addition of Rs. 44,78,935/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unaccounted income of the assessee by estimating the Gross Profit of the assessee at 8% of the unaccounted sales.

16.1 On this issue while making the addition Ld. AO has observed that in view of submissions of the assessee, incriminating documents/ loose papers / data found from laptop, hard disk and other digital evidence found and seized from the various premises, statement recorded during the search and seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under:

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 16.2 Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, assessee remain absent before the Ld. CIT(A) on various occasions, when the matter was fixed for hearing. Ld. CIT(A) thereafter had deliberated on the issue in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee based on material available on records. The observation 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur of the Ld. CIT(A) after deliberating upon the merits of the issues are that “I find that Ld. AO is justified in assessing the total income of the appellant as discussed above, when repeated opportunity in this regard was provided clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. In this circumstance, I have no option but to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the grounds of appeal of appellant.”

16.3 Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision with the Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal, which is under consideration before us.

16.4 Ld. CIT-DR, on the issue of addition by the Ld. AO by estimating the profit on unaccounted sale @8%, had submitted that the assessee remains non- responsive before the First Appellate Authority, as also before the Tribunal during the proceedings in the present case. It seems that the assessee has no plausible explanation as to why the estimation of profit on unaccounted sale should not be 8% and the same shall be taken at 5% as declared by the assessee. In absence of any response by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) had rightly decided the issue after thoroughly deliberating upon the merits of the issue. In view of such facts and circumstances, the order Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be sustained.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 16.5 We have considered the submissions of the revenue and material available on record. On perusal of the orders of revenue authorities, it is observed that the assessee had objected to the addition by estimation of GP @8%, whereas the assessee had declared the GP at 5%. Ld. AO had not found the estimation of 5% to be justifiable, therefore, the same has been raised by another 3%. The issue has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), however, there was no representation by the assessee on 06 occasions when the appeal was fixed for hearing. Under such circumstances, we do not find any extraneous exercise of powers by the Ld. CIT(A), whereas Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to decide the appeal based on facts on record available before him after deliberating thoroughly at length on the merits of the issue, to rest the prolonged litigations pending before him. As the conduct of assessee before us is also observed to be evasive and of a non-compliant, as the group matters of the assessee were fixed for hearing on various occasion, but the assessee remains non-responsive or has represented only for seeking of adjournments for one or another reasons, which are not found to be reasonable. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations are of the considered opinion that there was no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in absence of any plausible explanation by the assessee to dislodge the same. We, thus, uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A), with no interference on our part. In result, ground no. 3 of the assessee stands dismissed.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

17.1 On this issue, the facts are culled out from the order of Ld. CIT(A), which reads as under:

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 17.2 Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, assessee remained absent before the Ld. CIT(A) on various occasions, when the matter was fixed for hearing. Ld. CIT(A).

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) had deliberated on the issue in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee based on material available on records. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) after deliberating upon the merits on the issue are that “I find that Ld. AO is justified in assessing the total income of the appellant as discussed above, when repeated opportunity in this regard was provided clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. In this circumstance, I have no option but to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the grounds of appeal of appellant.”

17.3 Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision with the Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal, which is under consideration before us.

17.4 Ld. CIT-DR, on the issue of addition by the Ld. AO on account of commissioner @1% on bogus sales transacted by the assessee during the year under consideration, had submitted that the assessee remains non-responsive before the First Appellate Authority as also before the Tribunal, it seems that the assessee has no plausible explanation on the issue. Therefore, in absence of any response by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) had rightly decided the issue after thoroughly deliberating upon the merits of the issue, in view of such facts and circumstances, the order Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be sustained.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 17.5 We have considered the submissions of the revenue and material available on record. On perusal of the orders of revenue authorities, it is observed that the assessee had objected to the addition on account of commission @1% on the bogus sale of Rs.63,43,003/-, which works out at Rs.63,430/-. All such transactions are held to be bogus sale transactions on the basis of incriminating material impounded during the search & seizure action conducted on the premises of the assessee and a commission of 1% is added to the income of the assessee. Though the assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted before the Ld. AO that all the transactions of RTGS are part of regular books of accounts of the assessee accounted for a sale and as per audited books of accounts, the tax on such transactions are being offered, therefore, it would not be justifiable to assessee the same income again. On this issue, Ld. AO had made exhaustive exercise to find out cash payments by the assessee against the RTGS received from various parties, he consider the contentions of the assessee but are not found acceptable for the reason that the assessee is involved in providing of Bogus Sales bills in lieu of commission, therefore, in light of incriminating documents commission @ 1 % was added to the income of the assessee. The issue has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) however, there was no representation by the assessee on 06 occasions, when the appeal was fixed for hearing. Under such circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to decide the appeal based on facts 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur on record available before him after deliberating thoroughly at length on the merits of the issue. As the assessee’s conduct before us is also observed to be evasive and of a non-compliant as the group matters of the assessee were fixed for hearing on various dates but the assessee remains non-responsive or has represented only for seeking of adjournments. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations are of the considered opinion that there was no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in absence of any plausible explanation by the assessee to dislodge the same. Further, we observe that the assessee’s involvement in providing of Bogus Sales bills in lieu of commission was never disputed by the assessee, therefore, receipt of commission by the assessee on such bogus transactions cannot be doubted, therefore, the finding of Ld. AO that the assessee has received a commission from such transactions found to be of material substance. We, thus, in terms of such observations do not find any perversity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), so we uphold the same. In result, Ground no. 4 of the assessee, therefore, stands dismissed.

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 19. Ground no. 6: This ground is general and academic in nature, which in absence of any further advancement of contentions, has been rendered as infructuous, thus, dismissed. for the AY 2014-15 by the assesse stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

, 515, 516, 517 & IT(SS)A No. 14/RPR/2024:

514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd.vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 22. In combined result, IT(SS)A No. 14 & 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 filed by the assessee are rendered as dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (ARUN KHODPIA) �ाियक सद� / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 16/01/2025 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2. ��थ� / The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.