M/S. BABJI OIL MILL PVT. LTD.,,RANEKPAR, TAL. WAKANER, DIST. MORBI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, arises from order of the CIT(A)-3, Rajkot dated 16-02-2018, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts confirming addition of an amount of Rs. 3,17,87,900/- treating the same as unexplained 7 bogus purchase. The addition needs deletion.

The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all ground of appeal before the actual hearing takes place.”

The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), but none appeared before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, Ld. Page No 3 M/s. Babji Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT CIT(Appeals),on the basis of material on record and on the basis of written submissions filed by the authorised representative of the assessee, confirmed the additions made by the AO. As regards the addition of � 2,270,000/- under section 68 of the act, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition on the ground that in the appellate proceedings, the assessee has furnished no evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. With respect to the disallowance of unexplained purchases of � 3,17,87,990/-, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee could not provide any address of the aforesaid purchase party and the said purchases remained unverified. Therefore, since even in the appellate stage, the assessee is not in a position to substantiate the veracity of these purchases, the addition on account of unverifiable purchases was confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals).

Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that in the proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee could not cause appearance and present its case on merits. The counsel for the assessee submitted that if given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to suitably demonstrate the genuineness of the deposits which have been confirmed under section 68 of the Act and also the genuineness of the purchases, which have been added to the income of the assessee as unverified purchases. In response, DR relied upon the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee Page No 4 M/s. Babji Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and if given an opportunity, he would adequately demonstrate the genuineness of transactions in respect of which the additions have been made. Accordingly, considering the quantum of additions made, in the interest of justice, we are restoring the file to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to enable the assessee to give the necessary supporting/evidence with respect to the aforesaid additions.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.