THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA vs. SHRI JUVANSINH JORUBHA JADEJA,, DWARKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 26/RJT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 February 2023AY 2014-15Bench: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A and that the Assessing Officer did not provide adverse findings on the evidence submitted. Therefore, the additions deleted by the CIT(A) were upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed sundry creditors and made an addition on account of job work expenses. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal by admitting additional evidence and deleting the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and deleting additions based on that evidence. Whether the disallowance of sundry creditors and addition on account of job work expenses were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(12),Section 143(2),Section 133(6),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 19.01.2023Pronounced: 03.02.2023

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Jamnagar for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences produced by the assessee even though the assessee was not covered under any condition laid down in Rule 46A(1) as also despite the fact that during the assessment proceeding the assessee was given adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,64,54,340/- on account of disallowance of sundry creditors by relaying on additional evidences produced by the assessee.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.61,09,638/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 by relaying on additional evidences produced by the assessee.”

3.

The return of income was e-filed on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.9,07,190/- which was processed under Section 143(12) of the Income Tax Act,

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 2 of 3 1961. The case was selected under scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015. The assessee has shown Sundry Creditors to the tune of Rs.2,66,82,135/-during the year under consideration. For verification of genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the Sundry Creditors, notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued on the addresses provided by the assessee. Notices were returned un-served by the Postal Authorities in respect of two of the Sundry Creditors. Till the finalisat6ion of the Assessment Order, the assessee did not file any details and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.2,64,54,340/- on account of unexplained Sundry Creditors. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of job work expenses.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Oder, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that as relates to ground no.1, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the additional evidences. Ld. AR further submitted that after taking into cognisance of additional evidences the assessee has demonstrated that addition of Rs.2,64,54,340/- that of Sundry Creditors is not sustainable. In respect of addition on account of job works under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the same was also rightly deleted. Thus, the Assessing Officer relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

6.

As relates to ground no.1, the Ld. DR submitted that despite giving proper opportunities and issuance of several notices, the assessee did not co-operate at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules is not justifiable on the part of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer was not given proper/ample time in respect of commenting on additional evidences. As regards ground no.3, the Ld. DR submitted that in respect of job work ,the TDS was already accepted by the Assessing Officer.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee before the CIT(A) has explained why the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings,. The assessee has given all the details related to Sundry Creditors in respect of job work.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 3 of 3 The CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence as per the procedural aspect under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. Thus, ground no.1 of Revenue’s appeal does not survive.

8.

As relates to ground no.2, the Assessing Officer has not given any adverse finding in respect of the evidences filed before the CIT(A) in his remand report. In fact, the Assessing Officer indirectly admitted that the additional evidences set out the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the Sundry Creditors. Thus, ground no.2 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

9.

As regards to ground no.3, the CIT(A) has given detailed order as relates to job work. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, ground no.3 is dismissed.

10.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 3rd February, 2023

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →