Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1.0 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an Order dated 02.03.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, in for the AY 2008-09. The assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds:
ITA No.2823/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:
The Orders of the Assessing Officer and that of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai [‘CIT (A)’] are against the law, the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of equity and natural justice.
The CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer assessing the creditors of the Appellant aggregating to the sum of Rs.3,09,604/- as unexplained cash credit. The CIT (A) erred in holding that the identity of the 4 creditors who confirmed the balance was not established by the appellant.
The CIT (A) ought to have examined the creditors before holding that their identity was not established by the appellant. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that they are creditors of the appellant in the course of its business.
The CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the appellant with regard to the disallowance of made by the Assessing Officer on the claim for deduction of Tyre Retreading Charges of Rs.1,85,200/- incurred by the appellant.
The CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant with regard to the rejection of claim for depreciation on the lorry purchased by the Appellant. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had produced the copies for invoices for the purchase of Lorries during the year.
The CIT (A) having called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer erred in passing orders without detailed consideration of the submissions of the assessee and the Assessing Officer.
The appellant craves the leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to adduce additional grounds in support its contentions before and during the course of hearing this appeal.
2.0 Ground Nos.1 & 7 are general in nature, which do not require any specific adjudication.
3.0 Ground Nos.2 & 3 are related to the addition of Rs.3,09,604/- relating to the outstanding sundry creditors for non-submission of confirmations. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and filed the confirmations before the Ld.CIT(A) and the CIT(A)did not accept the genuineness of outstanding credits for want of PAN no. and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as AO).
Aggrieved by the order of the A.O the assessee is in appeal before us.
ITA No.2823/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:
3.1 During the appeal the Ld.AR filed paper book enclosing the copies of confirmations from the creditors and argued that though the confirmations were furnished before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition for want of PAN. The Ld.AR argued that all the creditors are reputed business houses assessed to tax, outstanding credit is genuine and requested to delete the addition mad by the A.O. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities orders.
3.2 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.
We have also gone through the confirmations furnished by the assessee. All the creditors have confirmed the outstanding balances. The Ld A.R. stated that during the pendency of appeal before the CIT(A), The ld.CIT(A) called for the remand report from the AO on submission of the confirmations from the sundry creditors, but passed the appellate order without waiting for the remand report. Neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) have verified the genuineness creditors and blindly made the addition.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that an opportunity should be given to the assessee in the interest of justice and the issue should go back to the file of the AO for making enquiries regarding the genuineness of the outstanding credit balances. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO with directions to make, further enquiries with the creditors and call for necessary information such as PAN, outstanding
ITA No.2823/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: balance, etc., and give an opportunity to the assessee to confront the evidence if any collected by the AO and decide the issue afresh on merits.
Ground No.2&3 are allowed for statistical purposes.
4.0 Ground No.4 is related to the disallowance of Rs.1,85,200/- relating to Tyre retreading Charges. The AO disallowed the expenditure for non-submission of sufficient details. The assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and agitated the addition in ground No.4.
Ground No.5 is related the disallowance of lorry freight amounting to Rs.15,38,961/- for non-submission of evidence for purchase of lorry.
The Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated both the issues in ground No.5&6 raised before him. The Ld.AR argued that the assessee has furnished all the evidences for purchase of lorry expenditure incurred etc., in respect of lorries and complete details of expenses relating to tyre retreading charges.
4.1 We heard both the parties and gone through the evidence produced by the assessee.
4.2 The AO disallowed the depreciation on lorries for non-furnishing of Invoices having purchased the Lorry. Similarly, Tyre Retreading Charges were disallowed for non-submission of sufficient evidence before us. The ITA No.2823/Mds/2016 :- 5 -: assessee’s AR produced the copies of ledger account extracts for Tyre Retreading Charges and evidences for purchase of Lorries from M/s.VST Motors Ltd in the paper book. The Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated these grounds. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issue should be remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits. Accordingly we remit the matter in respect of ground No.4&5 back to the file of the Ld.CITA) for adjudication on merits. The assessee’s appeal in ground No.4&5 allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.