SHREE HEMANT SHANKARRAO JADHAO , AMRAVATI V. PR. CIT , NAGPUR

ITA 22/NAG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0404 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 263; 143(3); 142(1); 48; 72

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ नागपूर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.22/NAG/2018 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Hemant Shankarrao Jadhao, A-81, MIDC Area, Amravati, Maharashtra – 444607 PAN : AAQPJ2579P .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur – 1 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17-10-2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 30-10-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 16-03-2017 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur for assessment year 2012-13. 2. We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 249 days. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the delay condonation petition, we are of the opinion that the assessee made out sufficient cause which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. The delay of 249 days is condoned. 2 ITA No. 22/NAG/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 3. The assessee raised 9 grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the action of Pr. CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is justified. 4. We note on perusal of impugned order, that the Pr. CIT held the assessment order dated 27-03-2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the ground that the AO failed to look into the certain issues. According to the Pr. CIT that the AO failed to examine the issues regarding claim of expenditure of Rs.32,161/- to Sundaram Finance Ltd., receipt of an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- from Sanjay Diwan as unsecured loan and discount to three related parties which is evident from page 1 of the impugned order. According to the Pr. CIT that the assessee claimed an expenditure of payment of interest to Sundaram Finance Ltd. without deducting the tax at source. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the TDS required to be deducted on the payments made to Sundaram Finance Ltd. and the AO failed to examine the same. There is no record to show that the AO examined such issue during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, unsecured loan taken from Sanjay Diwan, is evident that no examination was conducted during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, relating to discount given by the assessee to its group concern, we find no proof of examination by the AO during the original course of assessment proceedings on record and we are of the opinion that the Pr. CIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction in directing the AO to examine the same. 5. Another issue interest expenditure in respect of funds borrowed from SIDBI as there was no material evidence to establish that the AO verified the details of such interest expenditure during the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee filed paper book containing 80 pages from which a notice u/s. 142 of the Act is enclosed at 3 ITA No. 22/NAG/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 pages 72 to 74 of the such paper book. On perusal of the same, we note that the AO asked the assessee the details of wind mill project, sundry creditors confirmations, details of unsecured loan, details of interest paid, details of additions made to fixed assets and details of expenses mentioned therein. We find the reply of assessee from pages 48 to 63 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee claims to have submitted the details in respect to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, but, whereas, we find no signature of the representative of the assessee or any endorsement receipt on such reply by the AO. In view of the same, we have to treat the same as not filed in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of Pr. CIT in directing the issues raised in 263 proceedings for fresh verification. Thus, the order of Pr. CIT is justified and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 30 th October, 2023. रदव आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Nagpur 4. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, नागपूर, / DR, ITAT, Nagpur. 5. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune