SALIL KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4 ASR, C R REVENUE BUILDING AMRITSAR
Facts
The assessee, a contractor, challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning alleged suppressed turnover of Rs. 97.15 lakhs and an unconfirmed sundry creditor liability of Rs. 10.50 lakhs. These additions arose from discrepancies found between reported contract receipts, Form 26AS, bank deposits from M/s Omni Projects (India) Ltd., and the unverified nature of the liability to M/s Shiv Shankar Trading Co. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for lack of proper explanation and supporting evidence.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate claims of sub-contracting or to verify the sundry creditor balance before the lower authorities. While noting the assessee's repeated requests for adjournment and lack of preparedness, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to present all necessary documentary evidence and proper explanations for the discrepancies.
Key Issues
Whether the additions for suppressed contract turnover and unverified sundry creditor liability are justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to furnish evidence.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC,
Delhi dated 18.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-4, Amritsar passed u/s 143(3) of
the Act, dated 25.12.2018.
2 I.T.A. No. 295/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2. There are eight grounds of appeal taken by the assessee but the main dispute of
the assessee relates to the addition of Rs.97.15 lakhs on account of alleged suppressed
turnover and an addition of Rs.10.50 lakhs being alleged unconfirmed liability existing
on A/c sundry creditors balance.
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee being a contractor has
returned a short fall in contract receipts in comparison to the gross contract receipt
reflected in Form No. 26AS.
It was further ascertained from the bank accounts that there is also a difference
in bank deposits or credits flowing from such contract business received from the
contractee M/s Omni Projects (India) Ltd. which amounts to Rs.5.59 crores (net after
TDS) duly deposited in the assessee’s bank account with IndusInd Bank A/c No.
xxxxx242013, which is more than the disclosed receipts of the assessee at Rs.4.68
crores.
It was further ascertained that an amount of Rs.10.50 lakhs being payable to
sundry creditors M/s Shiv Shankar Trading Co. has remained unverified in absence of
notice issued u/s 133(6) being returned unserved, which has resulted in an addition of
Rs.1.07 crores to the total income.
The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate
authority in absence of proper explanation to various issues raised in course of
3 I.T.A. No. 295/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 appellate proceedings regarding the actual figure of contract receipt on the basis of
information received from the contractee M/s Omni Projects (India) Ltd. The appeal
has been dismissed on the grounds that the assessee has not been able to produce any
supporting evidences to substantiate his claim that a certain part of the work has been
given out on sub-contract basis and the assessee has also not been able to fully reply
to the various discrepancies raised by the Assessing Officer in the assessment
proceedings.
It was further noted that the assessee has not been able to fully justify the
genuineness of the sundry creditors balance standing in the name of M/s Shiv Shankar
Trading Co. and the said outstanding has remained unverifiable.
Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the
memorandum of appeal and during the course of hearing, the assessee has not filed any
paper book nor any submission on merits of the case. The assessee has simply filed an
adjournment application praying time for preparation of paper book.
Considering the materials on record and the issues contained in the
memorandum of appeal, we find that various documentary evidences in support of the
contention of allotment of part contract work sub-contractors are required in this case
which also needs to be co-related with the deposits of contract receipts in bank account
and subsequent payments to sub-contractors. Moreover, documentary evidences and
4 I.T.A. No. 295/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 confirmations are also required to be obtained from M/s Shiv Shankar Trading Co.
being the sundry creditor of the assessee, which has remained unverified and the same
will result in filing of fresh evidence.
We also find that the assessee has not availed the opportunities to represent the
matter with full evidence before the ld. first appellate authority and has made half-
baked submissions, which is not enough to prove and explain the difference arising out
of the gross contract receipts from M/s Omni Projects (India) Ltd. and the
corresponding contract offloaded to sub-contractors, as claimed by the assessee.
As such, we are of the opinion, that it will not serve any purpose to adjourn the
case any further, considering the fact that adjournment has been granted to the assessee
on previous occasions also. However, in the interest of justice, we allow the assessee
one more opportunity to represent the case with full documentary evidences and
submissions for proper explanation of the above discrepancies before the ld. first
appellate authority.
As such, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction
to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the case with documentary evidences
and we direct the assessee to file all the documents he wishes to rely upon in support
of his case and to fully cooperate with the ld. first appellate authority for proper
disposal of the appeal.
5 I.T.A. No. 295/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17
The assessee should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all legal issues are
left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 10.12.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
