Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Rip Das, A.R. Department represented by : Altaf Hossain, Addl. CIT Date of concluding the hearing : October 21, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : October 22, 2024
ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2013-14 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 27.05.2024 arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022, passed under Section 147 read with section 144B of the Act.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Arpit Sen
1. That the Order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice.
2. That the addition of Rs.2,35,44,107/- to the declared Taxable Income of Rs.68,02,370/- offered by your Appellant by adding the said sum as 'Unexplained Expenditure' by invoking the provisions of section 69C is based on assumption and surmises just to establish genuine & bona-fide expenses as not supported by proper documents. Hence, such confirmation of the arbitrary addition by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC be directed to be deleted. [Relief claimed Deletion of the addition of Rs.2,35,44,107/- made u/s 69C).
3. That the denial of credit of Taxes paid by your appellant in the form of Advance Tax, TDS Certificates and Self- Assessment Tax made on or before the completion of the Ld. AO as well as by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, despite backed by all corroborative and supported evidences, is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. Your appellant prays that such an unwarranted refusal of tax credit may please be directed to be deleted. [Relief claimed Allowance of Credit of Taxes paid amounting to Rs.21,88,820.24/-].
4. That your appellant craves leave to urge, to add, to alter, to amend or to adduce further grounds of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the AO while framing the assessment order stated that the assessee had made payments to contractors amounting to Rs. 2,35,44,107/-. However, the assessee contended that he had only made payment amounting to Rs. 1,22,35,404/- to the contractors and had deducted applicable TDS except in the case, of transport charges of Rs. 7,60,608/-. Despite the assessee’s explanation, the Ld. AO was not satisfied and made an addition u/s 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,35,44,107/- to the assessee’s income.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR argued before the Bench that no such amount of Rs. 2,35,44,107/- was ever paid as alleged by the Ld. AO in the 2 Arpit Sen assessment order and the Ld. AO failed to provide supporting documents to show that the assessee had furnished incorrect accounts. Therefore, the alleged addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69C of the Act was incorrect and should be set aside.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR did not object to the assessee’s request and agreed to the extent that the matter could be remanded back to the Ld. AO for fresh examination. The Ld. DR suggested that the AO should determined whether the assessee had made payments of Rs. 2,35,44,107/- or Rs. 1,22,35,404/- as claimed by the assessee.
We after considering the submissions of the parties, we find it necessary to set aside the assessment order with a direction to AO to re- examine the issue afresh, particularly whether the assessee had made payments amounting to Rs. 2,35,44,107/- or Rs. 1,22,35,404/- as claimed by the assessee. We also directed the assessee to furnish relevant documents to substantiate its claim and if the AO found any discrepancy, the Ld. AO is directed to provide such details of the payments made to the contractor in the assessment order and re-assessed the matter in accordance with law. Additionally, the assessee argued that the Ld. AO had denied the correct tax paid by the assessee in the form of advance tax, TDS certificates, and self-assessment tax which amounting to Rs. 21,88,820.24/-, despite the assessee provided supporting documents.
We after considering the instant issue and direct the Ld. AO to verify the record and allow the tax credit claimed by the assessee after proper verification of the record.
In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
I.T.A. No.1331/Kol/2024 Arpit Sen
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 22nd October, 2024.