M/s. Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Pune

ITA 461/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8883 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK PANDURANG RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.461/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt. Ltd., EL-22, J Block, MIDC Bhosari, Pune-411026 PAN : AAAC13916N .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 10, Pune ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10-02-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 14 -02-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07-12-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee raised ground Nos. 1 to 5 amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in 2 ITA No.461/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 confirming the addition made by the AO in respect of discrepancy in the entries in Form No. 26AS and in the books of assessee without giving opportunity to the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR drew our attention to Para No. 7 of the assessment order and submitted that the AO in the assessment proceedings found discrepancies in respect of receipt of income as per Form No. 26AS and entries in the books of account to an extent of Rs.2,81,94,238/-. The AO asked to give proper reasons explaining in respect of said discrepancies and the assessee submitted reconciliation vide letter dated 04-03-2015. While considering the same, the AO held that the assessee did not furnish any cogent evidence and documentary evidences regarding the discrepancies and added an amount of Rs.2,81,94,238/- to the total income of the assessee. He argued that there was no opportunity for the assessee before the CIT(A) and the order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(A). The ld. AR placed on record an order dated 14-05-2019 in MA No. 05/PUN/2017 arising out of ITA No. 1832/PUN/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 in assessee‟s own case and submitted in similar circumstances this Tribunal sought report from the AO and considering the same gave partial relief. He submits that the assessee is now ready to produce all the details in respect of discrepancies and referred to pages from 98 to 162 of the paper book and affording opportunity to the assessee in remanding the issue to the file of AO. 4. The ld. DR vehemently opposed in remanding the issue to the file of AO and submitted that the assessee could not produce any details before the AO and the CIT(A) when both the authorities below given ample opportunity to the assessee to furnish detail explanation involving the 3 ITA No.461/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 addition. The assessee failed to submit any details and the assessee is not entitled to seek any relief by praying this Tribunal to remand the issue to the file of AO. 5. We note that the AO discussed the issue in detail in Para No. 5 of the assessment order and also the CIT(A) discussed the same in Para No. 2.1.8 of impugned order. We note that the CIT(A) considered the order of this Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein, it was reproduced in the impugned order at Page Nos. 5 and 6 basing on which the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO in the absence of any valid explanation in respect of discrepancies found in Form No. 26AS and books of account of the assessee, but, however, we note, the said order has been modified vide order dated 14-05-2019 in MA No. 05/PUN/2017, wherein this Tribunal sought report from the AO in respect of discrepancies and allowed relief in part to the assessee. There is no dispute regarding this issue by the ld. DR. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR and in view of the same, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file all evidences, if any, in support of its claim. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass order, in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. The assessee also raised additional grounds of appeal vide letter dated 07-06-2021. 4 ITA No.461/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 7. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute additional ground Nos. 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 8. In ground No. 3 the assessee has assailed charging of interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest u/s. 234A and 234B is mandatory and consequential. Accordingly, ground No. 3 is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Dipak Pandurang Ripote) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनांक / Dated : 14 th February, 2022. रवि आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Pune 5. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्याधपत प्रधत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ विजी सविि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune