NARESH KUMAR CHAPARIA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

Naresh Kr. Chaparia vs. ITO Wd-1(3), Asl. Page 2 3. For that the LD Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has not been justified in confirming addition of Rs.29,404.00 in respect of sundry debtors reflected in recasted balance sheet for failure to provide its particulars.

For that the LD Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has not been justified in confirming addition of Rs.21000.00 in respect of additional trucks claimed by AO for 3 months each when the same has barely plied for one month during the said year.

For that the LD Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has not been justified in confirming addition of 50% of Deposits (Rs.21,10,000.00) in bank accounts for non submission of details of parties from whom cheques were received.

For that the LD Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has not been justified in confirming addition of Rs.5,37,396.00 in respect of contract work from ITS data base of AST software as the assessee employs trucks with various parties, some of them falls under the ambit of TDS and hence the parties have done the same.

For that the LD Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has not been justified in confirming addition of Rs.42000.00 in respect of additional truck number WB-41A-0889 which is not owned by the assessee at all and does not belong to the assessee.” Heard both the learned representatives reiterating their respective stands against and in support of impugned addition(s). Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action making various addition(s) / disallowance(s) in his assessment order dated 19.0.2013. The main issue raised herein in the instant lis are of undisclosed addition in respect of additional of ₹3 lac, down payment addition of ₹60,000/- sundry debtors of ₹29,404/-, additional trucks claimed of ₹21,000/-, 50% of deposits of ₹21.10 lac in bank account, difference in ITS data base of AST software to the tune of ₹5,37,396/- and addition of ₹42,000/- in respect of additional truck No.WB-41A-0889; respectively. I notice from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s order that he has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action without even dealing with assessee’s detailed evidence forming part of record in the nature of cash flow for the period ending on 31.03.2010. recasted balance-sheet and statement of affairs as on 31.03.2010, letter of M/s Impex Ferro Tech Ltd. and M/s Impex Steel Pvt Ltd. dated 07.08.2018, bank statement in ICICI and HDFC bank accounts, response to letters u/s. 133(6) of the Act by the parties and show-cause dated 11.02.2013. I deem it Naresh Kr. Chaparia vs. ITO Wd-1(3), Asl. Page 3 appropriate in this backdrop of facts that the CIT(A) needs to re-examine the entire issues raised in the instant case afresh as per law after dealing with the relevant evidence followed by a detailed adjudication as required u/s 250(6) of the Act. I therefore restore assessee’s appeal back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits.