Sun Crop Sciences Private Limited, , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1282/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1688 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1282/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2016 - 17 SUN CROP SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAMCS 8794 E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY SMT. N. SWAPNA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 29/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 /06/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10245/ITO - 3(4)/CIT(A) - 3/2018 - 19, 27/05/2019 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2016 - 17. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL HOWEVER , THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT : THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WHO HAD DISALLOWED BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 1,35,56,935/ - . 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF VEGETABLE SEED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AY ON 9/1/2017 ADMITTING LOSS OF RS. 1,88,17,323/ - . THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2018 WHEREIN THE LD. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,35,56,935/ - BEING DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 4. THE LD. AO MADE THE ADDITION BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHE D ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 1,35,56,935/ - . EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WITH COGENT EVIDENCE . 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED B EFORE ME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR RS. 1,35,56,935/ - WAS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF GOLD COINS BY WAY OF CHEQUE PAYMENT AND THESE GOLD COINS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE FARMERS AS AN INCENTIVE TO PURCHASE SEEDS FROM THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS BEFO RE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THEM. THIS LETHARGIC ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPRECIABLE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT , THE ASSESSEE IS IN AGRO SECTOR, TAKING A LENIENT VIEW I HEREBY REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE - NOVO CONSIDERATION WITH LIBERTY TO FILE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. I ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO - OPERATE BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE IR PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. 8. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AFTER 90 DAYS OF HEARING THE APPEAL, WHICH IS THOUGH AGAINST THE USUAL NORMS, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTRA - ORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE LO CK - DOWN DUE TO COVID - 19 PANDEMIC. WHILE DOING SO, I HAVE RELIED IN THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. IN ITA NO.6264/M/2018 AND 6103/M/2018 FOR AY 2013 - 14 ORDER DATED 14TH MAY 2020. 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH JUNE, 2021. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 30 TH JUNE , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) SUN CROP SCIENCES PR IVATE LIMITED , FLAT - G3, SHR APEX, GANGA ENCLAVE , PET BASHEERBAD, QUTBULLAHPUR MANDAL, HYDERABAD - 55. 2) ITO, WARD - 3(4), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD - 84. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER