DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CITYGOLD FARMING P.LTD, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 29.05.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2012-13.

The short facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a company engaged in business of acquisition by purchase, leasing or otherwise, to carry out agriculture and allied activities and to construct, erect, acquire, equip, lease furnish, convert, adapt, improve, develop, operate and manage all sorts of agricultural parks etc. During the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. A.R. of the assessee was asked to furnish the loan confirmation, ITR and balance sheet in respect of advance given by M/s. A.N. Enterprises to the assessee amounting to Rs.6,00,00,000/-. As the 2 M/s. Citygold Farming P. Ltd. assessee did not produce address of M/s. A.N. Enterprises and said details, the assessee was again given further notice and assessee has furnished own bank statement reflecting the amount received from M/s. A.N. Enterprises. The assessee could not produce the confirmation from the said party. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to lender who did not respond to the notice. Therefore, AO has made the addition.

The matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal without verifying the creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction and identity of the creditor, therefore, matter may be restored to the AO to verify the same.

The Ld. A.R. has no objection, if the matter is restored to the file of the AO.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that during the course before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted own bank statement reflecting the said payment, ledger account of lender and balance confirmation but Ld. CIT(A) has not called for the remand report or the Ld. CIT(A) has not verified these details. The Ld. CIT(A) has, simply relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2014) 264 ITR 254, deleted the addition. Therefore, we reverse the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and restore this matter back to the file of AO and the AO is directed to decide the matter afresh, as per law.