30 to CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (l) Ltd.

SHRI SHEO BHAGWAN GOEL,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX, RAIPUR (CG)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 290/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Sheo Bhagwan Goel 121, Mapel Parthivi Pacific, Ge Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aikpg 3811 D .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, .……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 4(1), Raipur C.G) Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of The First Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 16/05/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 28/02/2015 Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 9

…d upon the submission of GSP accompanied by relevant voucher and reasonable explanation when called for. 11. We can find the statutory force and support in aforestated view from the ration laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Indian Molasses reported at 78 ITR 474, CIT Vs Calcutta Agency reported at 19 ITR 191 (SC) and I. H. Sugar Factory & oil Mils Pvt Ltd Vs CIT reported at 125 ITR, 293 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Lordship have held that, the primary onus of providing necessary facts and produce evidence in substantiating the claim in order to avail the deduction under Section 37(1) is on the assessee. 12.…