SHRI UMAR KABIR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which stemmed from an AO order making an addition of Rs. 27.57 lakhs for unexplained loans or customer advances. Despite the CIT(A)'s order stating "Appeal is allowed", it failed to adjudicate this specific addition. A 45-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal due to medical reasons.
Held
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s inadvertent omission to adjudicate the specific addition of Rs. 27.57 lakhs, a fact acknowledged by the Ld. DR. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for specific adjudication on the ground relating to the addition of Rs. 27.50 lakhs (unexplained loans or customer advance) that was previously unaddressed.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the addition of Rs. 27.57 lakhs made by the AO, and if the matter should be remanded for specific adjudication on this unaddressed point.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)
NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250(6) of the Act 1961, dated 05/02/2024, which has arisen out of the order of the AO, Ward-3(3), Srinagar, dated 16.12.2016, passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act.
2 I.T.A. No. 314/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is
belatedly filed by 45 (forty five) days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating that the appeal order has been received on 5th
February, 2024, and the appeal before the tribunal should have been filed within sixty
days there from, but on account of medical problems the assessee had to undergo treatment at District hospital, Handwara (Kashmir Division) in support of which medical OPD card has been filed. He prays for condonation of the delay on medical
grounds and for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits. The Ld DR has no
objection. Considering the factual circumstances, and in absence of any willful
neglect on the part of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for
hearing on merits.
The grounds of appeal contained in form 36, relates to only one single issue of
dispute regarding the addition of Rs. 27,57,000/- made by the AO , on account of
advance received from customers (as per the AO the said amount is unsecured loans obtained from parties as per details contained in para-5 of the assessment order ).
During assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions of Rs. 27.57 lakhs, to the
satisfaction of the AO , resulting in one of the additions to the total income, assessed
3 I.T.A. No. 314/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 at Rs. 91.16 lakhs (vide final computation of the AO dated 16/12/2016 u/s
143(3)/147).
The matter carried in appeal before the Ld CIT (A), has been disposed off vide appellate order dated 5th February, 2024, NFAC, passed by Ld CIT ( A ) , u/s 250(6) of the Act 61, without adjudicating on the addition of Rs.27.57 lakhs, even though it
is a part of the remand report furnished by the AO in course of first appellate
proceedings (as evident from page -12 of appellate order para-5 ) .
Before us in course of the hearing the Ld AR of the assessee pointed out that
even though in the appellate order , last paragraph (last sentence) , the result is noted as “ Appeal is allowed ”, but from the body of the appellate order, it is seen that there
is no discussion of the said addition of Rs. 27.57 lakhs or its deletion, which means
that the said addition is left intact , in absence of any specific findings of the
appellate authority on the issue of unsecured loans/ (or unsecured advance as claimed by the assessee in his written submission ) .
The Ld DR, after examination of the records in the court , has admitted the
inadvertent omission on the part of the first appellate authority.
As such considering the facts and materials on record and after hearing both
the counsels, we remand the matter to the Ld CIT (A), only on the specific issue to
adjudicate on the specific ground relating to the addition of Rs. 27.50 lakhs, alleged
4 I.T.A. No. 314/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 as unexplained loans as per AO ( or customer advance as claimed by assessee ) ,
which might have been inadvertently left out, while framing the appellate order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court as on 30.05.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Brajesh Kumar Singh) (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
