MANIKANT NUTRITIONS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(2)(2), NOIDA

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 09/12/2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds of Appeal are as under:- “1. That Id CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 31950000/- made by Id assessing officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2
Manikant Nutritions Foods Pvt. Ltd.
3. An assessment order came to be passed on 28/12/2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs.
3,19,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the credit liabilities shown by the Assessee company during Financial Year 2013-14 at Rs.
3,19,50,000/- is unexplained cash credit of the Assessee company.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/12/2016, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 09/12/2022, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 09/12/2022, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3
Manikant Nutritions Foods Pvt. Ltd.
5. The Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that during the Assessment Proceedings it was explained to Ld. Assessing Officer by whom addition was made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
that no amount has been received through banking channel during the year under consideration and it is only a rectification entryhas been passed in the year consideration of the error committed in the preceding year. Since the rectification entry can easily be fetched out from the audited balance sheet and Assessee company was under bonafide belief that no addition should have been made under section 68of the Income
Tax Act as there was no banking transaction, copy of the documents mentioned in the Application could not be filed before Id Assessing
Officer.
Thus, Assessee filed the ledger accounts of the creditors and the letter of confirmation as additional evidence and sought for allowing the application filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Rules, 1963. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that even after providing sufficient opportunities, the Assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, objected for allowing the Application filed under Rule 29 of the Rules.

4
Manikant Nutritions Foods Pvt. Ltd.
7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has been passed ex-parte and the Assessee was under the impression that the rectification entry can be easily fetched out by the A.O. from the audited balance sheet and the Assessee was under the bonafide belief that no addition will be made by the A.O.
Therefore, those documents have not been placed before the A.O.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a liberty to the Assessee to produce all documents and the A.O. is directed to frame the assessment de-novo after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.