What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and factually incorrect regarding the non-submission of confirmations. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 20,16,419/- made in respect of sundry creditors. The assessee contended that confirmations for these creditors were submitted, which the CIT(A) erroneously stated were not furnished.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the confirmations submitted by the assessee and passing a cryptic order.

M/S Nataraj Granites vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC – B’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, Advocate

For Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT DR

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of CIT (A) – 6 Bangalore dated 03.04.2017 for A. Y. 2012 – 13.

The assessee has raised 7 grounds but the effective grievance is only one about addition made of Rs. 20,16,419/- in respect of Sundry Creditors.

Learned AR of the assessee submitted that as per Para 8 of the impugned order of CIT (A), it is stated by him that no confirmation has been furnished. She submitted that this is factually incorrect because all confirmations were submitted and copy of same are available in the paper book on pages 2 to 28 of the paper book. She pointed out that PAN is also mentioned in all these confirmations. She also submitted that the order of CIT (A) is very cryptic and without considering the material brought on record by the assessee and therefore, it should be set aside and the matter may be restored back to his file

for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in Para 8 of his order, it is stated by CIT (A) that no confirmation has been furnished. But I find that this is factually incorrect because it is submitted before me that all confirmations were submitted before AO & CIT (A) and copy of same are available in the paper book filed before the tribunal also. I also find that PAN is also mentioned in all these confirmations. I also find that the order of CIT (A) is very cryptic and without considering the material brought on record by the assessee and therefore, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and the matter is restored back to his file for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

M/S NATARAJ GRANITES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments