Samar Biri Factory, Siliguri V. A.O., Assessment Unit, Bengaluru

ITA 582/KOL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6368 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G. AJAY ROBIN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUJIT BASU; RAJIB MUKHERJEE
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69C; 43B; 142(1); 250; 143(2); 139(1)

Judgement Text

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ᭠यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory Aurobindopally Siliguri - 734006 [PAN : AAOFS7941N] Vs Assessing officer, Assessment Unit अपीलाथᱮ/ (Appellant) ᮧ᭜ यथᱮ/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate Revenue by : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/06/2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 19/02/2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but the main contention of the assessee is that on account of the death of the key person of the assessee firm, no one could appear before the ld. Assessing Officer and, thereafter when the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), the same was dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. It was prayed that since high pitched assessment has been made in the case of assessee by the ld. Assessing Officer and assessee had no opportunity to furnish the details, the issues on merits may be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory On the other hand, the ld. D/R, though supported the order of the lower authorities, was fair enough not to oppose the request of remitting the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer. 3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We notice that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing of biri. Income of Rs.40,21,640/- declared for Assessment Year 2020-21 furnished on 15/02/2021. Case selected for completed scrutiny. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that after the notice of scrutiny u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act being served on the assessee firm, key partner of the appellant firm, Shri Samar Saha, who used to look after the tax and accounts matter died on 13/02/2022. In between due to Covid restrictions, no appearance could be made and after the death of the partner again compliance could not be made. We further note that the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer are firstly unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for the difference in closing balance of the sundry creditors for the current year and preceding year and secondly disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act have delay in deposit of employer’s contribution towards PF & ESI. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that since no financial statement of preceding year and current year were filed, the ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition and had there been any opportunity, the same could have been explained. As far as the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, he submitted that the alleged sum is on account of employer’s contribution and not employees’ contribution and the same was deposited before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and, 3 I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory therefore, disallowance u/s 43B of the Act is uncalled for. We, however, note that due to minor delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed and ld. CIT(A) has not made any finding on the merits of the case. Considering the facts of the case, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that, the assessee should remain compliant to the notice of hearing and shall not take adjournment and should appear on the very first date of hearing unless otherwise for a bonafide cause and furnish the details in support of its grounds. Ld. Assessing Officer should ensure that the assessee is provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 24 th June, 2024 at Kolkata. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 24/06/2024 *SC SrPs 4 I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Assessee 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाडᭅ फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Kolkata