BANSAL ALKALIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (OLD JURISDICTION CIRCLE1(1)(2)), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 591/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper reasoning for both confirming and deleting the additions. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper inquiry into the unsecured loans.

What were the facts?

The assessee and revenue filed cross-appeals against the CIT(A)'s order concerning additions made under Section 68 for AY 2017-18. The CIT(A) confirmed a partial addition of Rs. 5,46,80,577/- and deleted another addition of Rs. 8,09,82,311/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming a partial addition and deleting another addition related to unsecured loans without proper appreciation of facts and reasoning. The need for further inquiry by the Assessing Officer into the nature of unsecured loans.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT D.R
Pronounced: 04.11.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.591/Ahd/2024
I.T.A. No.643/Ahd/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT D.R. 24.10.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This cross appeals have been filed by the Assessee and Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in

2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1. Ld. DCIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in confirming addition of Rs. 5,46,80,577/- out of Rs. 130573123/- made u/s 68 by Ld. AO.

3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,09,82,311/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case.

2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.

3.

It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

4.

We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that no ratio has been given for confirming the addition of Rs. 5.46 lakhs and also for deletion of the addition of Rs. 13.56 crores.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) and the Counsel for the assessee submitted that substantial justice can be drawn by regarding the matter to the file of the AO as the proper enquiries with regard to the unsecured loans can only be adjudicated by the AO.

6.

We find that the prayer of both the parties is acceptable. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the AO to conduct the assessment proceedings de-novo.

643/Ahd/2024 Bansal Alkalies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Department is dismissed.

This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 04/11/2024

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →