ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(2), NEW DELHI vs. T R AGRITECHNO LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1710/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 June 2023AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence, including reconciliation statements for three public sector undertakings (STC, MMTC, PEC), and the AO's remand report did not contain adverse comments.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of sundry creditors. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and notices to the assessee's address were returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and deleting additions based on reconciliation statements from public sector undertakings, despite the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 30.05.2023Pronounced: 01.06.2023

The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 28.12.2017 of CIT(A)-13, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal no. TR76/16-17 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 20.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

As the case was called for hearing, non-appeared for the assessee. Record shows on repeated notices on earlier 8 occasions, non-appeared for the assessee. We should give no more opportunities, the notices issued are received back with report that ‘no such person existing at the address’.

4.

Arguments of ld. DR were heard who supported the orders of Ld. AO and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration that on notices being issued these companies had failed to respond and gave confirmation of the outstanding credits.

5.

Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that Ld. CIT(A) was given reason of the case by the assessee as appears at page no. 27 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it is mentioned in para no. 8 of the additional evidences as follows :-

“8. So far as the three creditors who have responded to the notices issued under section 133(6), but as per the response there was a huge variation between their and appellant's version, we beg to submit the reconciliation statement in all the three accounts duly supported by all the relevant details, copies of accounts etc. as per particulars given here under: Sl. No. Name of the party Page Nos. (i) The State Trading Corporation of India 101-116 Ltd. (in short ‘STC’) (ii) MMTC Ltd. 117-170 (iii) PEC Ltd. 171-261 6. The order of ld. CIT(A) has showed that additional evidence was admitted and remand report was called from Ld. AO wherein no adverse comments was made with regard to reconciliation of account of STC, MMTC and PEC was given. Further the matter of fact is that all these three enterprises are public sector undertakings. Thus, the opinion of Ld. CIT(A) based upon the evidence before it and the aforesaid fact of the parties being Public Sector Undertakings to delete the additions on account of sundry creditors requires no interference. The appeal of revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st June, 2023.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →