Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-5, Chennai dated 20.07.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
The crux of the issue in this appeal is that the Assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), who had erred in sustaining the following additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer:
i) Sundry crdeditors (M/s.Synergy Ferro Alloy) Rs.15,35,673/- treated as income u/s.41(1) of the Act. ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.3,15,369/- advanced to sister concern M/s.Hydromet (India) Ltd., iii) Addition u/s.68 towards cashcredits of Rs.78,000/- in the name of M/s.Kumaran Traders –(4 entries totaling to Rs.78,000/-) and M/s.Quality Plastic –(4 entries totaling to fRs.78,000/-) totaling in all to Rs.1,56,000/-.
2.1 At the time of hearing, ld.A.R has not pressed the ground No.4 raised in the ground of appeal relating to issue No.(iii) as mentioned in above para. Accordingly, this ground stands dismissed as not pressed.
3. The assessee filed a petition to admit additional evidences under Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1963 as follows:-
1) The appellant firm has filed an appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee has now filed a paper book. 2) There are certain papers which were not filed before the Assessing officer but were filed before the CIT(A) as will be evidenced by the contents of From 35 column, for the reason that the appellant could gather the same only at later point of time. 3) The assessee had to persuade the other party to the transaction to furnish the detail and it took considerable time. 4) It is therefore submitted that the items 1,2,3,4,10,11,12,13,18,19 were filed before the CIT(A) only item 5,and 22, 23 contained in the paper book are additional evidences which may be admitted as the same would prove the entries passed in the subsequent year. 5) Also the appellant could bring on record the subsequent year’s Balance Sheet to prove the transaction in question and how it was taxed in that year. 6)These evidences/ papers go to the root of the matter relating to the addition made under Sec41(1) and the interest disallowance made by the assessing officer and needs to be admitted. Dated at Chennai this the 4 th day of December 2017.
1 The additional evidences at serial No. 1,2,3,4,10,11,12,13,18, & 19 mentioned in the index of the paper book are as follows:-
Sl. Particualrs Pg. No. No. 1 Synergy Ferro Ally’s letter to AO dt.18.4.16 1
2 Synergy Ferro Ally’s A/c copy of M/s.Hydromat (I) Ltd from 2-3 01.04.2004 to 31.3.12
3 In the book of Hydromat –Ledger A/c –Malavika Enterprises 4 to 9 from 01.4.12 to 31.3.13
4 In the book of Malavika Enterprises –Ledger a/c – Hydromat 10-15 Ltd from 1.4.12 to 31.03.13
10 Synergy Ferro Alloy a/c in Hydromat book’s 55-57 11 HDFV Bank a/c & Annexure 58-75 12 Synergy Ferro Ally’s A/c in Hydromet 76-81 13 Synergy Ferro Ally’s ltr to assessee dt 18.4.16 82-84 18 Malavika Enterprises a/c in Hydromat’s books 105-119 19 Malavika Enterprises a/c in KSM Mettallurgicals Ltd. 120
I have gone through the petition filed by the assessee and these documents are first time filed before this Tribunal and the reasons explained by the assessee for not filing these evidences before the lower authorities are bona fide. Since the assessee could not gather the same on earlier occasion, the same is admitted for adjudication.
4.1 In my opinion, the additional evidences have very relevance in deciding the issue raised bythe assessee before me and the lower authorities have no occasion to examine the same. Hence, both the issues in dispute are remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine afresh in the light of above additional evidences and accordingly the issues in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.