SHREE RADHEY KRUPA CONCAST (INDIA)PVT.LTD,ANANTAPUR vs. DY.CIT-6, KANPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH LUCKNOW
Before: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH LUCKNOW BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.129/LKW/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shree Radhey Krupa Concast (India) Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 1 &7, Gollapuram, Village-Hindupur, Anantpur (AP) PAN: AANCS5342M . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant
बिधम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Rakesh Garg [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 26/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 26/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER Per G. D. Padmahshali, AM; Aggrieved assessee by the first appellate DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060056383(1) dt. 24/01/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the Ld. Add/Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai [‘CIT(A)’ in short] which in turn sprung out of order of assessment dt. 31/03/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter].
Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that; 2.1 The return of income filed by the assessee company declaring total loss of ₹3,18,64,571/- was first summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and
ITAT-Lucknow Page 1 of 4
Shree Radhey Krupa Concast (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No.129/LKW/2024 AY:2013-14 subsequently selected for scrutiny vide service of notice dt. 02/09/2014 u/s 143(2) of the Act.
2.2 While framing an assessment u/143(3) of the Act the Ld. AO made two bullet additions viz; (1) addition of ₹1,43,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit in the event of assessee’s failure to establish threefold attributes of section 68 of the Act in relation to share application money claimed to have received from Mr Vijaykumar Agrawal and (2) additional of ₹ 29,61,959/- u/s 41(1) of the Act owning to assessee’s failure to produce copies of confirmation of balances, ledger accounts of (a) Chatwal Cargo (b) Ganesh Roadlines & (c) Tirumala Roadlines etc., and accordingly determined the total income in variation to income returned by the assessee company.
2.3 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in appeals before first appellate authority, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by deleting the first addition made u/s 68 of the Act in its entirety, however countenanced the second addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act for equi-reasons.
Still aggrieved the assessee came before us in present appeal on four grounds alleging solely against the solitary addition made in its case as such addition is contrary to the provisions of section 68 of the Act and unwarranted in view of the jurisdictional high court decision in ‘Jazsons Vs CIT’[2017, 88 Taxmann.com 617 (All)].
ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 4
Shree Radhey Krupa Concast (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No.129/LKW/2024 AY:2013-14 4. Appearing for the appellant the Ld. Senior AR Mr Garg has reiterated appellants all contentions & arguments as raised & placed respectively before both the tax authorities below and prayed for allowing the appeal. Au contraire the Ld. DR Mr Sharma submitted that in-spite multiple opportunities at both assessments as well at first appellate stage the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of sundry creditors with cogent evidence, and assessee is no different in the present proceedings too. Therefore, the addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act calls no disruption.
We have heard the rival parties on the sole & substantive ground of addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act and subject to rule 18 of the ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in the light of settled legal position.
We note that there is no dispute that the assessee had business transaction with three identified creditors viz; (a) Chatwal Cargo (b) Ganesh Roadlines & (c) Tirumala Roadlines etc. The balances payable to these creditors however remained to be proved on records with cogent evidence in the form of letter of confirmation and copies of ledger accounts etc., owning to which the Ld. AO held them as no more payable and therefore added as income u/s 41(1) of the Act treated it to be remission of liabilities. In the absence of concreate evidence suggesting even remotely that the liability to pay to these identified creditors is still alive, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO.
ITAT-Lucknow Page 3 of 4
Shree Radhey Krupa Concast (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No.129/LKW/2024 AY:2013-14 7. The present solitary issue in our considered view can put to rest utterly on the basis two evidences viz; (1) letter of confirmation from parties and (2) copies of ledger accounts in the book respective parties.
In view of the facts and circumstance of appellant inability to produce the former documents before the tax authorities below which resulted into addition u/s 41(1) of the Act, we deem it fit to accord one more opportunity to the appellant to produce them before the Ld. CIT(A) who shall verify & vouch the same in remand and decide this limited issue on merits in accordance with law. ergo order accordingly. Needless to state that, the assessee shall be given preferably three effective opportunities of hearing to produce the former documents in support of its claim.
In result the appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday, 26th day of June, 2024
-S/d- -S/d- SUBHASH MALGURIA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिनाांक / Dated : 26th day of June, 2024 आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi (India) 4. The Concerned CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘A’, Pune 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आिेशानुसार / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Lucknow
ITAT-Lucknow Page 4 of 4
