Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. Learned Commissioner of Appeal, NFAC has erred in passing the Order u/s. 250 of the 1. Tax Act. Ex-parte without deciding the issues involved in appeal and without deciding each issue on merits.
2. Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by A.O. of Rs.2,76,454/- u/s.40A(3) being cash paid of electricity expenses.
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 2 of 4 3. Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by A.O. of Rs.6,00,000/- (Hon. Commissioner took the amount Rs.12,00,000/-) u/s.40(b) being salary paid to HUF Partner of the firm.
4. Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs.18,327/- (PF Rs.16,089 + ESIC Rs.2,238) u/s.36(i)(va) r.w.s.24(x) of Act.
5. Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs.24,73,717/- being difference in Job work and sales shown in Profit & Loss A/c. compared with ledger a/c. of parties.
Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs.2,43,83,961/- on the ground that assessee has claimed TDS of Rs.6,62,553/- in ITR whereas no corresponding receipt to this extent is not shown. (6,62,553* 100/2.266 [TDS Rate] = Rs.2,92,38,879 - shown 48,54,918 = Rs.2,43,83,961)
7. Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. Rs.30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee received cash loan on advance and repaid the same during year by attracting provisions of Section 40A(3) on assumptions and Provisions u/s.269SS/269T of the Act.
8. The assessee craves for liberty to amend, modify and add any grounds of appeal or furnish additional evidences.”
The assessee, being a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of manufacturer of rolling mills machinery and parts. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 disclosing total income of Rs.7,54,319/- under the head “profit and gains of business or profession” on a total turnover of Rs.2,25,07,622/-. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings vide order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 15.03.2014 accepting the returned income of Rs.7,54,319/-. Subsequently, the PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and accordingly passed order under Section 263 of the Act on 23.02.2015. The PCIT held
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 4 that the original Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 15.03.2014 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on various counts and, therefore, set aside the order back to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, consequent to the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act dated 23.02.2015, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and conducted hearings with the assessee. The Assessing Officer followed the direction issued by the PCIT and concluded the assessment proceedings vide order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act dated 28.08.2015 raising a demand of Rs.1,53,96,550/-
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the earlier Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee firm had certain dispute, therefore, the Ex-AR did not attend the scrutiny assessment and did not file any details and did not inform the assessee about the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted the affidavit of the partner thereby stating the conduct of the Ex-AR and submitted that the Ex-AR did not attend any hearing as well as not submitted any evidence before the CIT(A) through all the evidences were given to him at the time of scrutiny and again on appeal hearing. The Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee was not able to furnish the evidences before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A), the assessee is filing the Paper Book for additional evidences before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the additional evidences may be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for taking proper cognisance of the evidences and decide the case on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 4 of 4 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was having knowledge of proceedings and, therefore, the additional evidences should not be admitted at this juncture.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. After going through the affidavit filed by the partner of the assessee firm, it appears that the assessee has genuine reason why the matter was not contested properly before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) by the Ex-AR due to the dispute with the said Ex-AR of the assessee firm. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to admit the additional evidences and remand back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the present appeal, after verifying the evidences produced by the assessee before us. The Assessing Officer should take cognisance of the evidences and decide the matter as per Income Tax Statute. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 7th June, 2024.