Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI.
(Assessment Year: 2021-22) DCIT, vs. Amtek Transportation Systems Ltd., Delhi. Begampur Khatoula, Gurgaon Khandsa 104, Gurgaon – 122 004 (Haryana). (PAN : AAHCA5047K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 24.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 raising following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7.86 Crore made on account of discrepancy found in the Sales Turnover reflected in Form 26AS vis-a-vis Gross Sales reported in the Profit and Loss Account by accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee without appreciating the fact the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings to furnish the details in this regard.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.66 Crore made on account of trade payable shown in the balance sheet by accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee without appreciating the fact the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings to furnished the details in this regard.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 99.86 Crore made on account of Current Liabilities shown in the balance sheet made by accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings to furnish the details in this regard.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 71.65 Crore made on account of Exceptional charges/expenses by accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee without appreciating the fact the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings to furnish the details in this regard.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the additional evidence in disregard to the Rule 46A if the I.T. Rule, 1962 as the case of the company is not covered under any of the circumstances as enumerated in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.”
At the outset, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice that assessment order passed was ex-parte. Against the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). He agreed that ld. CIT (A) has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer has not responded and filed any remand report. He submitted that ld. CIT(A) has considered only the detailed submissions made by the assessee and allowed the appeal of the assessee. He submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have given proper opportunity to the Assessing Officer to make available the remand report which is against the accepted convention and not followed the procedures laid down by the CBDT. He prayed that the present appeal may be remitted back to the ld. CIT (A) to give proper opportunity to the Assessing Officer.
3. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) wherein ld. CIT (A) has adjudicated the issue of non-submissions of details and non-representation before the Assessing Officer and further he submitted that assessee has filed additional evidences as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). He further brought to our notice detailed submissions submitted before the ld. CIT (A) which are reproduced in the impugned order. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was given proper opportunity by remanding the matter to him, however Assessing Officer chose not to respond to various reminders by the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) has proceeded to decide the appeal by verifying the detailed submissions submitted by the assessee which is factual matter and ld. CIT (A) has made a detailed discussion on this aspect and rightly decided the issues on record and he relied on the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A).
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. With regard to Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue that ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the additional evidences by disregarding Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. We observed from the impugned order that assessee has filed additional evidences by filing under Rule 46A and the same was AO for report and JAO has not filed any remand report even though there were several reminders forwarded to him and ld. CIT (A) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. (1994) (207 ITR 979) (Calcutta) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) (53 ITR 225) (SC) has decided the issue based on the material available on record. Therefore, ground no.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
5. With regard to merits of the issues, we observed that ld. CIT (A) has considered the detailed submissions of the assessee and decided the issue of difference in sales turnover, trade payables, current liabilities and disallowance of exceptional charges/expenses. Ld. CIT (A) has dealt with the issue of difference in sales turnover at paras 7.4 to 7.4.2 which is reproduced as under :- “7.4 Difference in Sales Turnover This addition of Rs. 7.86 Crore has been made by the AO merely on the basis of discrepancy in the Sales Turnover reflected in Form 26AS vis- à-vis Gross Sales reported in the Profit and Loss Account, for the year under consideration. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has claimed that the difference in sales turnover was due to sale of machinery of Rs. 8.01 Crore during the year (which was not includible in sales turnover of business). In support, the appellant has submitted copy of GSTR1 and sale invoices of plant and machinery, as additional evidence. The said additional evidence was forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for comments on admissibility thereof, and on merits as well, after causing necessary enquiries under the Act. The matter was followed up by way of reminders on various dates. However, no report has been received from JAO till date despite various reminders. Therefore, the said additional evidence has been admitted under Rule 46A for adjudication on merits, for reasons discussed at Para 4.2 above. 7.4.1 On perusal of copy of Form GSTR-1 (details of outward supplies of 2020-21, it is noted that sale of Plant and Machinery has been reported therein, showing total invoice value at Rs. 9.45 Crore and total taxable value at Rs. 8.01 Crore. It is further noted from the Schedule of Fixed Assets (Note 3.1 to annual accounts for the Financial Year 2020-21) that the appellant has shown sale of Plant and Machinery at Rs. 8.01 Crore during the year. The sale is further evidenced by copies of invoices dated 30.06.2021, raised by the appellant on M/s Alliance Integrated Metalics Limited, Patiala Punjab, towards sale of Plant and Machinery, for total invoice value of Rs. 8.64 Crore (taxable value of Rs. 7.32 Crore) and Rs. 81.07 Lakh (taxable value of Rs. 68.70 Lakh) respectively. The invoices bear all the requisite details viz. (i) Invoice number; (ii) GSTN Number, Name and complete address of both consignee and receiver, (iii) CIN Number, (iv)Description of Goods with HSN code; (v) E-way Bill No., etc. Further, no adverse remarks have been received from the JAO as to genuineness of the sale invoices, though the same were remanded back to JAO, along with other additional evidence. On the given facts, I am inclined to concur with the explanation furnished by the appellant that the difference in Sales Turnover reflected in Form 26AS vis-à-visGross Sales reported in the Profit and Loss Account is on account of sale of Plant and Machinery amounting to Rs. 8.01 Crore during the year. The said sale of Plant and Machinery is not only duly evidenced by sale invoices, but also duly reflected in the Form GSTR-1 and in the Fixed Assets Schedule (forming part of the Balance Sheet). It is evident that the said sale of Plant and Machinery, though captured in the Annual Tax Statement of the appellant in Form 26AS; was not at all required to be included in Gross Sales as per the Profit and Loss Accounts, as the same was on account of sale of Fixed Assets. 7.4.2 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of additional evidence brought on record by the appellant, I find that there remains no justification, whatsoever, for the addition of sum of Rs. 7,85,98,130/- towards difference in sales turnover. The disallowance made by AO on this account is not sustained.”
With regard to trade payables, he has dealt with the issue at paras 7.5 to 7.5.3 which is reproduced below :- “7.5 Trade Payable This addition of Rs. 2.66 Crore has been made towards trade payable shown in the balance sheet, merely on the basis that no details were provided, nor any response was submitted by the appellant, in the course of assessment proceedings. During the appellate proceedings, however, the appellant has provided details of the Trade Payable account; from which it is seen that the opening balance of Trade Payable as on 01.04.2020 was Rs. 1.39 Crore, whereas the closing balance as on 31.03.2021 was Rs. 2.66 Crore. The major addition to Trade Payable was on account of trade liability of one party namely M/s Amtek Powertrain Limited amounting to Rs. 1.29 Crore; which Other liabilities" to ''Trade Payable" account during the year. In support, the appellant has submitted copy of account confirmation along with ITR acknowledgment of M/s Amtek Powertrain Limited, as additional evidence. The said additional evidence was forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O.) for comments on admissibility thereof, and on merits as well, after causing necessary enquiries under the Act. The matter was followed up by way of reminders on various dates. However, no report has been received from JAO till date despite various reminders. Therefore, the said additional evidence has been admitted under Rule 46A for adjudication on merits, for reasons discussed at Para 4.2 above. 7.5.1 During the appellate proceedings, notice under section 133(6) was issued on 06.12.2023, through ITBA, to the said party i.e. M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd. at the given address, calling for the requisite information and supporting documents. In response, M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd. vide letter dated 15.12.2023 has confirmed that the outstanding balance of the appellant in their books of accounts was Rs. 1,28,88,759/- as on 31.03.2021, and furnished the relevant documents in support, viz.- (i) copy of ledger account of the Appellant for Financial Year 2020-21, (ii) copy of their Audited Financial Statements for Financial Year 2020-21; and (iii) copy of ITR acknowledgment for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 7.5.2 On perusal of details of Trade Payable account furnished by the appellant, it is evident that the only addition to the account during the year relates to one party M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd for an amount of Rs. 1,28,88,759/-. No adverse remarks have been received from the JAO as to genuineness of the details and documents furnished by the appellant, though the same were remanded back to JAO, along with other additional evidence. Further, in response to the notice under section 133(6) issued during the appellate proceedings, the said outstanding balance has been confirmed by M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd, along with relevant supporting evidence viz. ledger account, audited financial statements, ITR acknowledgment etc. On the given facts, I am inclined to concur with the explanation furnished by the appellant that the only addition in the Trade Payable account during the year, was on account of one party namely M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd., towards regrouping of its outstanding balance of Rs. 1.29 Crore from other liabilities to Trade Payables; and the said party has independently confirmed the balance amount. 7.5.3 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of additional evidence brought on record by the appellant, and also in the light of further enquiries made, I find that there remains no justification, whatsoever, for the addition of sum of Rs. 2,66,28,234/- towards trade payable. Apart from the opening balance of Rs. 1,38,74,360/-, the only addition in Trade Payable account during the year was outstanding balance of Rs. 1,28,88,760/- relating to M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd., which has been confirmed by the said entity, alongwith supporting documentary evidence. The disallowance made by AO on this account is not sustained.”
7. With regard to current liabilities, he has dealt with the issue in paras 7.6 to 7.6.6 and the same is reproduced below :- “7.6 Current liabilities This addition of Rs. 99.86 Crore has been made towards Current Liabilities shown in the balance sheet, merely on the basis that no details were provided, nor any response was submitted by the appellant, in the course of assessment proceedings. During the appellate proceedings, however, the appellant has provided details of the Current Liabilities; from which it is seen that the opening balance of Current Liabilities as on 01.04.2020 was Rs. 110.21 Crore, whereas the closing balance as on 31.03.2021 was Rs. 99.86 Crore. Thus, the total amount of credit balances grouped under “Current Liabilities” had actually reduced during the year. The appellant has submitted expenditure head-wise detailed break-up, which shows that the Current Liabilities, as on 31st March 2021, comprised of, - (i) Personnel Expenses of Rs. 82.54 Lakh, (ii) Other Expenses Payable of Rs. 8.95 Lakh, (iii)Statutory Dues Payable of Rs. 15.02 Lakh, (iv) Capex Trade Payable of Rs. 1.70 Crore, and (v) Other liabilities of Rs. 97.08 Crore. The appellant has further substantiated the liabilities grouped under the heads of Personnel Expenses and Other Expenses Payable (totaling to Rs. 91.50 Lakh) by furnishing the sub-head wise details and the relevant ledgers, viz. ledgers of Salary Payable, GWR Payable, Auditors Expenses Payable, Other Expenses payable etc. In respect of Statutory Dues Payable, the appellant has clarified that addition during the year under this head was to the tune of Rs. 5,89,109/- only; out of which a sum of Rs. 4,91,489/- towards unpaid PF/ESI dues were already added back in the Computation of Income. In respect of Capex Trade Payable, it is seen that the opening and closing balance under this head was Rs. 1,70,84,032/-., i.e . there was no addition during the year. Further, the appellant has given party wise break-up of the “Other Liabilities”; from which it is seen that the total outstanding balance of Rs. 97.08 Crore shown thereunder comprises of, - (i) M/s Revent Precision Engineering Limited (Formerly Amtek Auto Ltd .) amounting Rs. 86,03,49,120/-, (ii) M/s Revent Metalcast Limited ( Formerly Castex Technolgies Ltd.), amounting Rs. 7,55,74,536/- (iii) M/s OCL Iron & Steel Limited amounting Rs. 3,40,12,324/-(iv) M/s Gateway Impex Pvt Ltd. amounting Rs. 8,61,010/-, (v)M/s Satellite Forgings Pvt Ltd. amounting Rs. 43,360/-, and (vi)M/s WLD Investments Pvt. Ltd. amounting Rs. 38,000/-. In support, the appellant has submitted copy of account confirmation along with ITR acknowledgment of all the major parties i.e. Amtek Auto Limited, Castex Technologies Ltd., OCL Iron & Steel Ltd., and Gateway Impex Pvt. Ltd., as additional evidence. 7.6.1 The aforesaid details of Current Liabilities and supporting additional evidence was forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O.) for comments on admissibility thereof, and on merits as well, after causing necessary enquiries under the Act. The matter was followed up by way of reminders on various dates. However, no report has been received from JAO till date despite various reminders. Therefore, the said additional evidence has Rule 46A for adjudication on merits, for reasons discussed at Para 4.2 above. 7.6.2 During the appellate proceedings, notice under section 133(6) was issued on 06.12.2023, through ITBA, to the three major parties grouped as “ Other Liabilities”, under the head of Current Liabilities, i.e. M/s Revent Precision Engineering Limited (Formerly Amtek Auto Ltd.), M/s Revent Metalcast Limited (Formerly Castex Technolgies Ltd.), and M/s Gateway Impex Pvt Ltd., at their given addresses, calling for the requisite information and supporting documents. In response to notices, the parties have confirmed the respective balances, as under, - i. M/s Revent Precision Engineering Limited (Formerly Amtek Auto Ltd.) vide letter dated 15.12.2023 has confirmed that the outstanding balance of the appellant in their books of accounts was Rs. 86,03,49,120/- as on 31.03.2021, and furnished the relevant documents in support, viz.- (i) copy of ledger account of the Appellant for Financial Year 2020-21, (ii) copy of their Audited Financial Statements for Financial Year 2020-21; and (iii) copy of ITR acknowledgment for the Assessment Year 2021-22.
1. M/s Revent Metalcast Limited (Formerly Castex Technolgies Ltd.) vide letter dated 15.12.2023 has confirmed that the outstanding balance of the appellant in their books of accounts was Rs. 7,55,74,536/- as on 31.03.2021, and furnished the relevant documents in support, viz.- (i) copy of ledger account of the Appellant for Financial Year 2020-21, (ii) copy of their Audited Financial Statements for Financial Year 2020-21; and (iii) copy of ITR acknowledgment for the Assessment Year 202122. i. M/s Gateway Impex Pvt Ltd. vide letter dated 15.12.2023 has confirmed that the outstanding balance of the appellant in their books of accounts was Rs. 8,61,011/- as on 31.03.2021, and furnished the relevant documents in support, viz.- (i) copy of ledger account of the Appellant for Financial Year 2020-21, (ii) copy of their Audited Financial Statements for Financial Year 2020-21; and (iii) copy of ITR acknowledgment for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 7.6.3 In respect of M/s OCL Iron & Steel Ltd, it is noted that the outstanding balance has actually reduced from Rs. 11.20 Crore as on 01.04.2020 to Rs. 3.40 Crore as on 31.03.2021. The appellant has submitted account confirmations; from which it is seen that OCL Iron & Steel Ltd. (Gurgaon) had closing balance of Rs. 5.65 Crore (credit balance), as on 31.03.2021; whereas OCL Iron & Steel Ltd. (Kherani) had closing balance of Rs. 2.25 Crore (debit balance). Thus, the net balance of the said party was Rs. 3.40 Crore (credit balance) as on 31.03.2021. The appellant has further clarified that in the succeeding year, the appellant company has offered income by way of liabilities written back, totaling to Rs. 4.80 Crore; which includes write back of liability of M/s OCL Iron & Steel Ltd.
7.6.4 Further, the appellant has furnished copy of Return of Income (ITR- 6), along with Computation of income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. It is noted there from that a sum of Rs. 2,32,009/- has been disallowed under section 36 and sum of Rs. 2,59,480/- has been disallowed under section 43B, in computation of income. Thus, the claim of the appellant that a sum of Rs. 4,91,489/- towards unpaid PF/ESI dues were already added back, stands verified from the computation of Income. 7.6.5 To sum up, the appellant has furnished detailed head wise break-up of Current liabilities, and substantiated the same by furnishing ledgers, in respect of Personnel Expenses and Other Expenses payable, and account confirmations along with copy of ITR acknowledgements of major parties, in respect of liabilities grouped as “Other Liabilities”, under the head of Current Liabilities. No adverse remarks have been received from the JAO as to genuineness of the details and supporting documents furnished by the appellant, though the same were remanded back to JAO, along with other additional evidence. Further, in response to the notices under section 133(6) issued during the appellate proceedings, the respective credit balances outstanding have been confirmed by the parties concerned, along with relevant supporting evidence viz. ledger account, audited financial statements, ITR acknowledgment etc. On the given facts, I am inclined to accept the explanation furnished by the appellant as to genuineness of Current liabilities totaling to Rs. 99,86,14,787/- as shown in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2021, as the liabilities/credit balances grouped thereunder have been duly substantiated by the appellant, as also independently confirmed by the respective parties, during the appellate proceedings. 7.6.6 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of additional evidence brought on record by the appellant, and also in the light of further enquiries made, I find that there remains no justification, whatsoever, for the addition of sum of Rs. 99,86,14,787/- towards Current Liabilities. The liabilities/credit balances grouped under that head stand duly substantiated by way of relevant ledger accounts, and confirmation of balances by respective parties, along with supporting documentary evidence. The disallowance made by AO on this account is not sustained.”
With regard to exceptional charges/expenses, he has dealt with the issue in paras 7.7 and 7.7.1 which is reproduced below :- “7.7 Exceptional Charges/Expenses During the assessment proceeding, AO had asked the appellant to furnish a note on exceptional charges/expenses of Rs. 71.65 Crore with explanatory evidence. This addition of Rs. 71.65 Crore has been made by the AO merely on the basis, that no details were provided, nor any response was submitted by the appellant, in the course of assessment proceedings. During the appellate proceedings, however, the appellant has claimed that these expenses have already been added back in the Computation of Income and therefore no further explanation was required in this regard. 7.7.1 The appellant has furnished copy of Return of Income (ITR-6), along with Computation of income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. It is noted there from (Schedule BP- Computation of Income from Business or Profession) that a sum of Rs. 71,71,27,694/- has been added back, being amounts debited to the Profit and Loss account, to the extent disallowable under section 37. On the given facts, I am inclined to concur with the explanation furnished by the appellant that the amounts debited as exceptional charges/expenses have already been covered by the suo-moto disallowance made by the appellant under section 37. It is evident that the exceptional charges/expenses were not required to be further disallowed by the AO, as the same tantamounts to double addition of the same amount. The disallowance made by AO on this account is not sustained.”
After considering the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A), we observe that ld. CIT (A) has analysed the detailed submissions made by the assessee with regard to difference in sales turnover. Assessee has submitted copy of GST R-1 and sales invoices as additional evidences and after reconciling the same, ld. CIT (A) found that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee are proper and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is uncalled for. Therefore, we are inclined not to disturb the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A).
With regard to trade payables, we observed that assessee has filed details of ledger accounts of the party, copy of the audited financial submissions and copy of ITR for the impugned year. Ld. CIT (A) has issued notice u/s 133(6) to the parties, namely, Amtex Powertrain Limited and they have submitted the relevant supporting evidences viz. copy of ledger account, copy of their Audited Financial Statements and copy of ITR acknowledgment etc. After considering the same, ld. CIT (A) has deleted the said addition by comparing the opening balance from the previous year and closing balance of the current year. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the above findings.
With regard to current liabilities, he observed that the opening balance of current liabilities as on 01.04.2020 was Rs. 110.21 Crores and the closing balance as on 31.03.2021 was Rs.99.86 crores. The current liabilities actually reduced during the year. He also verified the expenditure-wise break up submitted by the assessee relating to current liabilities for the year under consideration relating to personnel expenses, other expenses payable, statutory dues payable, capex trade payables and other liabilities. After verification of the same in detail and discussed the issue at paras 7.6.1 and 7.6.2, he also issued 133 (6) notices to parties like M/s Revent Precision Engineering Limited (Formerly Amtek Auto Ltd.), M/s Revent Metalcast Limited (Formerly Castex Technologies Ltd.), and M/s Gateway Impex Pvt Ltd. and after considering the submissions of the parties which matches the information submitted by the assessee in their books of account, he found that the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer is uncalled for and accordingly he deleted the same.
With regard to exceptional charges and expenses, he observed that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis that no details were provided nor any response was submitted by the assessee. During appellate proceedings, assessee has submitted copy of return of income along with computation of income in the impugned year. The assessee has added Rs.7.1.71 being amounts debited to the Profit and Loss account, to the extent disallowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the assessee has made suo motu disallowance u/s 37 of the Act, the exceptional charges/expenses were not required to be further disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The same amounts to double addition. Accordingly, we delete the addition.
After considering the above facts on record, in our view, ld. CIT (A) has power of co-terminus to decide the issue as per law, we are inclined to dismiss grounds raised
by the Revenue.
14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of December, 2025.