Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/s S.B.Alloys & Metals, Vs ITO, Jajpur Ward, Jajpur Pankapal, Jajpur Road, Jajpur, Odisha-755026 PAN No. :ABFFS 2598 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :
This an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld..CIT(A), Cuttack, dated 19.02.2016, passed in I.T.Appeal No.557/2014- 15 for the assessment year 2010-2011.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issue was in respect of the addition of Rs.35,16,180/- treating the same under the head “unaccounted purchase” by the AO. It was submitted that as per the AO the VAT return of the assessee showed net purchases of Rs.1,93,94,431/-. It was the submission that as per the profit and loss account the purchases shown was to an extent of Rs.1,58,18,250/-. Consequently, the AO treated the difference of Rs.35,16,180/- as unexplained purchases of the assessee. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the said amount of Rs.35,16,180/- was capital purchases. It was the submission of the ld. AR that in the VAT return also this amount has been specifically showed as capital asset purchases and the same has also been shown in the audited accounts of the assessee. It was the submission that the purchases in respect of the business i.e. the purchases in respect of trading activity of the assessee, was only Rs.1,58,18,250/-. The ld. AR has placed before us the copy of the audited accounts to show that the purchases of capital goods is Rs.35,82,529.90. It was the submission that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that there has been no representation before the ld. AO nor the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. It was the submission that the issue should not be considered by the Tribunal, insofar as the evidences have not been produced before both the lower authorities. It was submitted that he has no objection to restore the issue before the ld. CIT(A) for readjudication.
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee in its audited accounts as per the VAT return has shown capital purchases of Rs.35,82,529.90. However, it is noticed that the assessee has not produced this evidence before the lower authorities and the assessee has not represented his case before both the authorities below. Thus, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the issue in this appeal must be restored to the file of AO for readjudication and we do so.