MRS. SUNITA MALLIKARJUN MAHAJANSHETTI,PACHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2[2], BELAGAVI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 418/PAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 June 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed documents, including purchase bills and a list of farmers from whom agricultural products were purchased. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for de-novo reconsideration of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed sundry creditors of Rs. 1,39,18,835. The AO disallowed Rs. 49,10,490 of this amount as confirmation letters were unserved and parties were untraceable, adding it to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of sundry creditors was justified without considering the purchase bills and other supporting documents provided by the assessee. Whether the assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to substantiate her claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 07.04.2022Pronounced: 27.06.2022

ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Belagavi {in brevity CIT(A)} bearing ITA no- CIT(A)/10196/BGM/2017-18, order dated 03.10.2018, passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2012–13. The impugned order was originated from the assessment order passed by the ld. Income

Sunita Mallikarjun Mahajanshetti v.ITO Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Belagavi, passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, date of order 08.12.2017.

2.

We advert to the basic relevant facts. In the assessment year assessee claimed sundry creditors amount to rupees 1,39,18,835/–. Out of the total sundry creditors amount to Rs.67,85,555/– was accepted by the learned AO. The balance sundry creditors amount to Rs.49,10,490/- was disallowed as the confirmation letters were returned unserved/unconfirmed and the parties are not traceable. The amount to Rs.49,10,490/- was added back with the total income of the assessee.

The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) for redressal her grievance.

The learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal for judicious consideration.

3.

During the appeal hearing the learned Counsel of the assessee filed a paper book with page number 1 to 56 which is kept in the record. The learned counsel argued that the learned you accepted the purchase of the assessee. But other hand disallowed the sundry creditors amount to Rs.49,10,490/- for lack of confirmation from the parties. Before that ld. CIT (A), the assessee filed detailed documents like bill, full name and place of sundry creators, full details of quantity, rate and purchase amount and all purchase bill duly signed by the parties. All the parties are by profession farmers. The assessee purchased goods from the farmer by cash. All

Sunita Mallikarjun Mahajanshetti v.ITO the documents are the basic evidence for adjudication of assessee’s grievance. The ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the judgment of ITAT in the case of CIT versus Ritu Anurag Agarwal (2010)taxmann.com Delhi-2134, ITA-325 of 2008.

The learned counsel of the assessee during argument took our attention from page number 5A to 53 of the APB. Assessee filed purchase bill, copy of ledger and a list with the address of the sellers.

4.

The learned DR argued & relied on the order of revenue authorities.

5.

We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. The main grievance of the assessee is that these sundry creditors amount to Rs.49,10,490/– was rejected. Though the whole purchase was accepted by the revenue. During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT the learned counsel filed detailed documents with list of the parties from whom the goods were purchased.

The assessee purchased the agricultural products from different farmers. During the hearing the assessee established her fact by supporting evidence filed in the paper book. It is to be directed that the following documents should be reconsidered by the learned AO and a reasonable opportunity should be allowed to assessee for her argument. We are setting aside the matter before the learned AO for reconsideration of the addition amount to Rs.49,10,490/- de-novo. Also, the Sunita Mallikarjun Mahajanshetti v.ITO assessee should get reasonable opportunity for substantiating her claim before the revenue authority.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2022

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →