Income Tax Officer Ward-8(1), Pune, Pune V. Ashruly Engineering Pvt Ltd, Pune

ITA 465/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ashruly Engineering Pvt. Ltd., which filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The appeals were related to the disallowance of a claimed loss and the addition of an unsecured loan received from the company's director, who had not filed his income tax return. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the issues, particularly the rejection of the books of account and the genuineness of the unsecured loan. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case back to the AO for a thorough reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137721 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.705/PUN/2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashruly Engineering Pvt. Ltd., House No.599, Plot No.802, Panchnath Chowk, Kokane Nagar, Pune 411 017, Maharashtra PAN : AAGCA3219A Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.465/PUN/2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune Vs. Ashruly Engineering Pvt. Ltd., House No.599, Plot No.802, Panchnath Chowk, Kokane Nagar, Pune 411 017, Maharashtra PAN : AAGCA3219A Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These two are cross appeals arise out of the order dated 21-02-2023 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in relation to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee’s appeal is time barred by about 48 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons which led to the Assessee by Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue by Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing 07-09-2023 Date of pronouncement 11-09-2023 ITA No.705 & 465/PUN/2023 Ashruly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2 late filing. We are satisfied with the same. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring total loss of Rs.2,66,18,369/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had accepted unsecured loan of Rs.1,56,51,399/- from its Director, namely, Mr. Nandkumar Z. Gaikwad who had not filed his return of income. Further, the AO observed that net profit ratio of the assessee declined from loss of -3.23% to -25.70% from the preceding year. In the absence of the assessee participating in the assessment proceedings, the AO framed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144 of the Act disallowing the claim of loss at Rs.2.66 crore and made an addition of Rs.1.56 crore. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s claim regarding the loss incurred during the year but refused the assessee’s claim on the genuineness of the unsecured loan. That is how, both the sides have come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings which led to the passing of the ex parte order u/s.144 of the Act. The AO, while disallowing the loss, has gone with the net profit ratio without making any ITA No.705 & 465/PUN/2023 Ashruly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 3 reference to the gross profit ratio of the assessee for the current year and the preceding year. The ld. CIT(A) has equally not advanced any sustainable reason to overturn the rejection of books of account, which were, in fact, not produced before the AO. Similarly, on the second issue of making addition u/s.68 of the Act, he simply relied on the fact that the director had not filed his return of income. When the assessee tried to furnish certain additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A), the same were not accepted. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) took cognizance of the same. This shows that right from the assessment stage, the case has not proceeded on the canons of established law. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of AO. We order accordingly. The AO is directed to frame the assessment afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11 th September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 11 th September, 2023 सतीश ITA No.705 & 465/PUN/2023 Ashruly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 4 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. 3. थ / The respondent The Pr.CIT concerned 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 07-09-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 07-09-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *