INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, FEROJ KHIMJIBHAI COMPLEX, BELAGAVI vs. S G COPPER PRODUCTS PVT LTD, VAZE GALLI, M VADGAON, BGM

ORDER PER BENCH: The appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the NFAC Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. And the assessee has filed Cross Objection. 2.At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the Cross Objections before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the Cross objections. The revenue has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition u/se 69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.

5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/sec69A of the Act though the assessee has not provided any evidence with respect to sale of goods, which was claimed as sources for cash deposits in the bank accounts and supported the order of the A.O and prayed for allowing the revenue appeal. Whereas the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules and substantiated the submissions with paper book and judicial decisions. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the evidences were not examined by the lower authorities.

6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue in the revenue appeal that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without any documentary evidences provided by the assessee. Whereas the Ld.AR emphasized that the assesse has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. And The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules along with the independent audit report and audited statement of accounts certificate under KVAT Act supporting the sales turnover which could not be submitted before the lower authorities. Hence, we considering the facts, circumstances and additional evidences, the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences play a vital role in decision making and we admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, we restore the disputed issues along with the additional evidence to the file of the CIT(A) to verify and adjudicate on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.08.2025.