Mahanadi Metal and Chemicals Private Limited, Rourkela V. ITO, Ward-1, Rourkela

ITA 496/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2390 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIMAL KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; TDS
• Section: 44AD; 40A(3); 40(a)(ia); 194C; 201

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM . / ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 ( / A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 201 0 - 201 1 ) M/S MAHANADI METAL AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED, T/4/26/CIVIL TOWNSHIP, ROURKELA - 769004 VS. ITO, WARD - 1, ROURKELA ./ PAN NO. : A A CCM 4844 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIMAL KUMAR JAIN , CA /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16 / 0 1 /20 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 / 03 /2020 / O R D E R PER L. P.SAHU, AM : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) , SAMBALPUR , DATED 04.09.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0 - 201 1 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACT AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES OF S/ 957144 UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION INSTEAD OF CONTRACT WORK. (PARA 4). 2. ON THE FACT AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN UNDERSTANDING THE ACCOUNTING ENTRY OF DISCOUNT OF RS. 16 , 91 ,687 AND WRONGLY TREATED THE BOGUS SUNDRY CREDITOR. (PARA8) 3. ON THE FACT AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 999390 FOR NON - SUBMISSION OF VAT RETURN, (PARA - 9) 4. ON THE FACT AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS UNJUSTIFIED FOR NOT SENDING FOR REMAND THE CASE AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2799978. ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.01.2011 DECLARING INCOME FROM BUSINESS AT RS.7,95,422/ - AFTER CLAIMING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS.4,01,142/ - RESULTING THE NET INCOME DISCLOSED AT RS.3,94,280/ - , HOWEVER, THE TAX WAS PAID U/S.115JB OF THE I.T.ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,28,813/ - . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SLURRY EXPLOSIVES DURING THE YEAR. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,57, 144/ - HAS BEEN PAID TO SHRI KHAGESH KUMAR PATEL TOWARDS COMMISSION AND ASSESSEES SALES AT DHANBAD, ASANSOL AND BILASPUR. A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI KHAGESH PATEL WAS S UBMITTED IN WHICH IT WAS NOTICED THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT ON THE ABOVE PAYMENTS, HENCE, THESE PAYMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF TH E ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN REPLY AND EXPLAINED THAT TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED U/S.194C @2% ON THE BASIS OF VERBAL CONTRACT WITH THE PERSON INSTEAD OF DEDUCTION @10%. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SU BMITTED THAT THE CASH PAYMENT S W ERE MADE BELOW RS.20,000/ - THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT IS ALSO NOT ATTRACTED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRO DUCED TDS RETURN IN ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 3 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TDS 1% OR 2% ON THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS MA DE TO SHRI KHAGESH PATEL. THE AO ANALYSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H AND ALSO REFER TO CHAPTER XVII - B. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SALES TO REPUTED CONCERNS OF RS.9,45,96,837/ - WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT IN MANY OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID MORE THAN RS.20,000/ - IN CASH TO SHRI KHAGESH PATEL. THE AO NOTICED THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED AS PER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AGA IN U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ALL THE PAYMENTS THROUGH CHEQUES AND HE WITHDREW THE CASH FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND HAS MADE CASH PAYMENTS TO SHRI KHAGESH PATEL, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PAYMENT TO SHRI KH AGESH PATEL HAS BEEN ADDED INTO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A)DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FILE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE EXCE PT A SELF - SERVING CERTIFICATE FROM SHRI KHAGESH PATEL. 4. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . THE ENTIRE PA YMENT WAS MADE FOR SELLING OF SLURRY ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 4 EXPLOSIVE PRODUCTS TO THE REPUTED COMPANIES IN LIEU OF THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO SHRI KHAGESH PATEL AND HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TDS HAS BEEN PAID AND QUARTERLY TDS RETURN HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED WITH THE IN COME TAX DEPARTMENT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHRI KHAGESH PATEL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS INCORPORATED THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND FILED COPY OF ITR - IV. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY VIOLATION OF PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY INCORPORATED THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI KHAGESH PATEL FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND THE TDS HAS DULY BEEN DEDUCTED THEREON. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF TDS CHAPTER. AS PER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED @10% ON THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS MADE BUT HE HAS DEDUCTED ONLY 2% INSTEAD OF 10% AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT FOR PAYMENTS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ - IN CASH . THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDE S AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS TO SHRI KHAGESH PATEL. ON ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 5 PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE US, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT D EDUCTED TDS AS PER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. HE HAS DEDUCTED @2% INSTEAD OF 10%. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED BEFORE US THAT MAJOR TURNOVER HAS BEEN ACHIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS AND HOW AND WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO SHR I KHAGESH PATEL FOR SELLING OF GOODS. THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS THROUGH CHEQUES/RTGS. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE TDS RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES NO.16 TO 40, WE NOTICED THAT IN THE CASE OF MANY INSTANCES THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED @ 1% OR 2% AS PER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE EXACT BREAK UP OF TDS RETURN. HE HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TDS @ 2% U/S.194C OF THE ACT. FURTHER O N PERUSAL OF THE COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OF SHRI KHAGESH PATEL IN THE FORM OF ITR - IV, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI KHAGESH PATEL HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS PER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT RELATES TO THE CIVIL CONTRACT WORKS BUT NOT FOR THE COMMISSION RECEIVED. WE NOTED FROM THE DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS CONTRADICTORY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN PLEA BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW THAT IT IS A COMMISSION PAYMENT TOWARDS SELLING OF GOODS, WHEREAS AS PER TDS RETURN AS WELL AS COPY OF ITR - IV OF SHRI ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 6 KHAGESH PATEL, WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACT PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, TO AVOID CONFUSION WE THINK IT FIT TO SEND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FINDING OUT THE CORRECT NATURE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI KHAGESH PATEL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROVIDE T HE DOCUMENTS AND AVOID IN TAKING UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ON FURTHER SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.3,85,36,3 67/ - WHICH INCLUDES AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,30,52,427/ - TOWARDS BLACK DIAMOND EXPLOSIVES LTD. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT BESIDES MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES, HE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN TRADING ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE TRADING PURCHASE FROM ASANSOL, DHANBAD AN D ROURKELA. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE CREDITOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE NAME OF BLACK DIAMOND INSTEAD OF BLACK DIAMOND EXPLOSIVES PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED EXPLOSIVE ITEMS FROM ONE M/S BLACK DIAMOND EXPLOSIVES PVT. LTD. FOR IT S ASANSOL PURCHASE AND HE HAS ALSO PURCHASED BLACK DIAMOND, BOTH LEDGER COPIES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO BUT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE NOTED BY THE AO AND THE CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.1,25,17,151/ - , BLACK DIAMOND PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED INTO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DHANBAD PURCHASE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 7 FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF VAT RETURNS FOR ITS ASANSOL AND DHANBAD PURCHASE. THE AO CALCULATED TOTAL PURCHASE FROM ASANSOL AND DHANBAD AND HE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.7,67,375/ - AND RS.9,24,312/ - . THEREFORE, HE TREATED IT AS A DISCOUNT RECEIPT FROM THE VENDOR, THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.16,91,687/ - . 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF VAT RE TURN AND DOCUMENTS AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT THE CIT(A) DENIED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE STATING THAT IN SPITE OF PROVIDING AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE VAT RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, TH EREFORE, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM. IT WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS A PART OF THE RECORD, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE BENCH AND HE REQUESTED FOR SENDING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR READJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. 11. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED FOR ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 8 SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE SAME, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE CLEAR CUT VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE NOTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH ARE PART OF THE RECORDS, THEREFORE, T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AND THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE DOCUMENTS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.3, THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE COPY OF VAT RETURN IN THE CASE OF ASANSOL AND DHANBAD PURCHASE. H E NOTICED THAT THE VAT RETURN WAS CALCULATED AT 12.5% ON THE PURCHASED AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS AS PER THE INFORMATION OF THE AO WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED ON THE BACKWARD METHOD. ACCORDINGLY, HE CALCULATED THE VAT RETURN AMOUNT OF RS.9,99,3 90/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ASANSOL AND DHANBAD PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE VAT RETURN, THEREFORE, HE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE VAT RETURN BUT THE CIT(A) HELD THA T IT IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 9 15. BEFORE US, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT IT WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE PART OF THE RECORD, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F AO FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE TO WHICH THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO ACCEPT THE VAT RETURN FILED. 16. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE RECORDS PRODUCED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, COPY OF THE VAT RETURN IS ACCEPTED AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SEND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO TO FILE NECESSAR Y DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. 17. FURTHER ON SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED RAW MATERIAL FOR MANUFACTURING OF SLURRY EXPLOSIVES WORTH OF RS. 3,15,09,272/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O PRODUCE THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS FROM WHOM THE RAW MATERIALS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE SAME BUT THE AO NOTICED THAT THE DESIRED INFORMATION HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH HAS BEEN IN CORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS REPEATEDLY ASKED BY THE AO TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE NOTED BY HIM BUT THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS. ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 10 THE DIFFERENCE NOTED BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.27,99,978/ - WAS CLAIMED AS BOGUS PURCHASE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DISCREPANCY IN PURCHASES IS DUE TO COMPRISING OF P URCHASE WITH DOUBT AND PURCHASE WITHOUT DOUBT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALSO A CHART WITH DUE ELEMENT ALONG WITH LEDGER COPIES BUT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM AND HE DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A PART OF THE RECORDS. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED TO PROPER ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUE. IT DOES NOT FILE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND HE REQUESTED FOR SENDING BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION. 20. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED FOR ACCEPTING THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE TH E DIFFERENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD BE RESTORED. 21. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE,, ITA NO. 496 /CTK/201 7 11 WHI CH WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A) WITH PROPER DOCUMENTARY SUPPORTS. THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ACCEPTED AND THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 / 0 3 /2020 . SD/ - ( C.M.GARG ) S D/ - (L.P.SAHU) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 18 / 0 3 /2020 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SE NIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - M/S MAHANADI METAL AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED, T/4/26/CIVIL TOWNSHIP, ROURKELA - 769004 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD - 1, ROURKELA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//