DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS SHREE ARIHANT TRADERS, BHILAI

O R D E R

Per Arun Khodpia, AM :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,06,854/- made by the AO u/s. 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, on account of sundry creditors outstanding balances.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,70,00,000/- made by the AO on account of credit received from related company by applying provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO on account of disallowance of Rs. 1,21,72,320/- being transport payments 2 & CO No.25/RPR/2019 made in cash by invoking provisions of sec. 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

4. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both in law and on fact.

5. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.

3. Further, the revenue vide letter dated 02.012.2022 has filed the additional ground of appeal which reads as under :-

1. On the facts &in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,06,854/- made by the AO u/s 41(1) of the Act by accepting the 'fresh evidence' filed by the assessee violating the Rule 46A of the IT Rules which is unjustified & unwarranted..

2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,70,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act by accepting the 'fresh evidence' filed by the assessee violating the Rule 46A of the IT Rules which is unjustified & unwarranted.

4. Ld. CIT-DR before us drew our attention to the additional grounds challenging therein the violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in accepting the fresh evidence filed by the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee has not furnished any information before the AO regarding the ledger account of M/s Shri Arihant Trade Links (P) Ltd and submitting the same before the ld. CIT(A) is absolutely fresh evidence, violating the provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. It was also submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that before accepting the evidences produced by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) was required to ask the AO to examine the same and to offer his comments on the merits of such additional facts. Therefore, it was the prayer of the ld. CIT-DR that the matter deserves to be sent back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

3 & CO No.25/RPR/2019 5. In response, the ld. AR of the assessee has fairly admitted that certain evidences pertaining to addition made u/s.41(1) of the Act were additionally submitted before the ld. CIT(A), were accepted and the adjudication was done based on the same, however, soft copy of books of accounts as well as written submissions were made before the ld. AO. Therefore, the addition u/s.2(22)(e) was made entire based on the records submitted by the assessee and therefore the contention of the revenue that additional evidences were submitted shall not be entertained.