SHAHENSHAHHUSSAIN MOINUDDIN KHAN, INDIVIDUAL,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 361/SRT/2019Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 July 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that significant additional documents and evidence were submitted by the assessee before the Tribunal, which were not presented before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to the assessment year 2014-15, challenging the CIT(A)'s order which treated a trade advance as attracting provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the advance was for commercial transactions and demonstrated a nexus with inward supplies.

What were the issues?

Whether the trade advance was a genuine commercial transaction and whether the additional evidence submitted by the assessee should be considered by the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh D Ariwala, F.C.A
Hearing: 09/05/2022Pronounced: 19/07/2022

Assessee by : Shri Brijesh D Ariwala, F.C.A Respondent by : Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 09/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014- 15, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 08.05.2019, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 29.11.2017.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:-

1.The Ld. CIT(A), Surat-1, has erred in Law and facts, in considering the trade advance in nature of commercial transactions, as advance which attracts provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AR of the assessee has clearly demonstrated as to nexus between the advances made by the company to the firm, as persons buying goods (feed/seed/medicines etc.) from the firm are same, as persons selling goods (Shrimp/prawns) to the company, clearly demonstrating the nexus of trade advance made by company was for the benefit of company’s inward supplies.

3. Shri Brijesh D. Ariwala, Learned counsel for the assessee, submitted before the Bench, the paper book containing page Nos. 1 to 46 and stated that following A.Y. 14-15 Shahenshahhussain M Khan evidences and documents were not filed before Ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings:

S.No. Brief description of documents Page Nos. (i) Ledger account of ISL Trading from books of Bashir 8 & Washi Fish Co.Pvt. Ltd. (advance given) (ii) Ledger account of Abis Exports (I) Pvt. Ltd form 9-11 books of ISF Trading. (purchases made, and payment made), with copy of purchase invoices (iii) Ledger account of Razszsaqo Sealine from books of ISF Trading (for sales made), along with copies of 12-20 sales invoices (FY 2013-14) (iv) Ledger account of Shiv Aqua Farm from books of ISF Trading (for sales made), along with copies of sales 21-28 invoices (FY 2013-14) (v) Ledger account of Razzaqo Sealine and Shiv Aqua Farm from books of ISF Trading (for sales Made) (FY 29-33 2014-15) (vi) Ledger account of Shiv Aqua farm from books of Bashir & Washi Fish Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for purchases and payment made) (for FYs 2013-14 & 14-15) alongwith extract of bank statements of company. 34-40 (vii) Ledger account of Razzaquo Sea Line from books of Bashir & Washi Fish Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for purchase and 41-45 payment made) (for FY 2014-15), alonngwith extract of bank statements of company. (viii) Flowchart demonstrating the trade advance 46

4.

Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argues that these additional papers and evidences/ documents are for the purpose to substantiate the transactions done by the assessee therefore, these evidences should not be treated as an additional evidences.

5.

On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative stated that evidences, and documents filed by the assessee, by way of paper book before the Bench, were not furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings, therefore Ld. Sr.DR submitted that these additional evidences were not examined by the lower authorities, hence the issue may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld DR further stated that ld CIT(A) should take proper remand report from the assessing officer in respect of these additional Page | 2

A.Y. 14-15 Shahenshahhussain M Khan evidences and after providing opportunity of rebuttal to the assessee, the issues involved in this appeal may be adjudicated in accordance with law.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that assessee filed aforesaid documents and evidences by way of paper book before the Bench and accordance to us most of these documents and evidences were neither filed before Ld. CIT(A) at the appellate stage nor before Assessing Officer at the assessment stage. Therefore, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to Ld. CIT(A) to examine these additional evidences by taking remand report from Assessing Officer. Hence, we remit the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to examine all the documents, bills and evidences. The ld CIT(A) should take remand report from Assessing Officer and after providing reasonable opportunity of rebuttal to the assessee, adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) as and when the date of hearing and to provide with all necessary evidence and information without any further delay and not to seek the adjournment without any valid reasons.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →