The ITO, Ward-1(4), Dwarka V. Shri Juvansinh Jorubha Jadeja, Dwarka

ITA 26/RJT/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the order of the CIT(A), Jamnagar, which pertained to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary issues in the appeal were the admission of additional evidences by the CIT(A) and the subsequent deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding sundry creditors and job work expenses. The Assessing Officer had initially disallowed the claims due to non-verification of the creditors and non-deduction of TDS on job works. However, the CIT(A) accepted the additional evidences provided by the assessee, leading to the deletion of these additions. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the procedural correctness in admitting the additional evidences and the substantive correctness in the findings based on these evidences.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129326 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 133(6); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA No.26/RJT/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.26/RJT/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, vs. Shri Juvansinh Jorubha Jadeja, Ward – 1(4), Dwarka. Prop. of JJ Enterprise, Vaill. Jhakhar, Dist. Dwarka [PAN – AFBPJ 8965 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sagar Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 19.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 03.02.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Jamnagar for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences produced by the assessee even though the assessee was not covered under any condition laid down in Rule 46A(1) as also despite the fact that during the assessment proceeding the assessee was given adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,64,54,340/- on account of disallowance of sundry creditors by relaying on additional evidences produced by the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.61,09,638/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961 by relaying on additional evidences produced by the assessee.” 3. The return of income was e-filed on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.9,07,190/- which was processed under Section 143(12) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No.26/RJT/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 2 of 3 1961. The case was selected under scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015. The assessee has shown Sundry Creditors to the tune of Rs.2,66,82,135/-during the year under consideration. For verification of genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the Sundry Creditors, notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued on the addresses provided by the assessee. Notices were returned un-served by the Postal Authorities in respect of two of the Sundry Creditors. Till the finalisat6ion of the Assessment Order, the assessee did not file any details and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.2,64,54,340/- on account of unexplained Sundry Creditors. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of job work expenses. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Oder, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that as relates to ground no.1, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the additional evidences. Ld. AR further submitted that after taking into cognisance of additional evidences the assessee has demonstrated that addition of Rs.2,64,54,340/- that of Sundry Creditors is not sustainable. In respect of addition on account of job works under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the same was also rightly deleted. Thus, the Assessing Officer relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 6. As relates to ground no.1, the Ld. DR submitted that despite giving proper opportunities and issuance of several notices, the assessee did not co-operate at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules is not justifiable on the part of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer was not given proper/ample time in respect of commenting on additional evidences. As regards ground no.3, the Ld. DR submitted that in respect of job work ,the TDS was already accepted by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee before the CIT(A) has explained why the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings,. The assessee has given all the details related to Sundry Creditors in respect of job work. ITA No.26/RJT/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 3 of 3 The CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence as per the procedural aspect under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1963. Thus, ground no.1 of Revenue’s appeal does not survive. 8. As relates to ground no.2, the Assessing Officer has not given any adverse finding in respect of the evidences filed before the CIT(A) in his remand report. In fact, the Assessing Officer indirectly admitted that the additional evidences set out the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the Sundry Creditors. Thus, ground no.2 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 9. As regards to ground no.3, the CIT(A) has given detailed order as relates to job work. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, ground no.3 is dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 3 rd February, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 3 rd day of February, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rajkot Bench, Rajkot