Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue by : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 25.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 01.04.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Trading in Machinery parts, Accessories, Industrial Gases, L&T Switchgears etc. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2013-14 was filed on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.11,18,058/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) at a total income of Rs.1,57,79,720/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs.16,80,223/- u/s.40(a)(ia) with which we are not concerned. The AO also made addition of unsecured loans received from the following parties to the tune of Rs.1,29,81,441/- as Income from Other Sources u/s.68 of the Act :
S.No. Name of the party in whose name Sum credited under the the sum is credited guise of unsecured loan 1 Agarwal Trading Co. 25,00,000 2 Deepak Digambar Pathak 2,50,000 3 Hanuman Khandsari Sugar Mills 2,50,000 4 Mahavir Gems 77,00,000 5 Nandlal Ramchandra Sarda 2,50,000 6 Pathak Deepak Dinkrao 7,00,000 7 Shrihari Traders 12,00,000 8 Vivek Vijay Gilda 1,31,441 Total Rs.1,29,81,441/-
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order after calling remand report from the Assessing Officer had deleted the addition u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. In respect of unsecured loans, the CIT(A)/NFAC based on the remand report submitted by the AO had deleted the addition in respect of Agarwal Trading Company, Vivek Gilda, Mahavir Gems and upheld the addition in respect of five parties namely, Hanuman Khandsari Sugar Mills, Deepak Digambar Pathak, Nandlal Ramchandra Sarda, Deepak Dinkrao Pathak and Srihari Traders.
Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A)/NFAC which is against the appellant, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
5. The ld. AR submitted before us that the CIT(A)/NFAC without dealing the explanation offered by the appellant against the adverse comments of the AO, merely confirmed the addition. Thus, he prayed that the matter be restored to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has no serious objection for remand of the matter to the file CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We accept the contention of the ld. AR for remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication since the CIT(A)/NFAC had confirmed the additions without dealing with the explanation offered by the appellant against the adverse comments of the AO. Therefore, we remand the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction that CIT(A)/NFAC shall deal with the explanation furnished by the appellant against the adverse comments made by the AO and then dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 25th day of September, 2024.