Shri. Dinesh Krishnan, Bengaluru V. Income-Tax officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 633/BANG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0211 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLIA, JUDIIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.633/Bang/2023 Assessment year : 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Krishnan, B-05, Raheja Arcade, 1/1, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Hosur Road, Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN : AIPPK 8938A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri N. Rama Raju, CA Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1053961593(1) dated 26.6.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2013-14 on the following grounds:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) -NFAC is against to the Appellant is bad in law and contrary to the settled principles of law. ITA No.633/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 5 2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be taxed in excess of returned income OF Rs.4,17,240/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeal, without affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC is not justified in not adjudicating independently each of the grounds raised by the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC erred in not holding that - the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in not inclining with the explanations of the Appellant submitted during the course of assessment proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC erred in not holding that - the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in adding a sum of Rs.3,00,68,404/- under the provisions of section 69C of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC erred in not holding that - the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the wordings used under the provisions of section 69C are 'May' and not `Shall' under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without further prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC erred in not holding that - learned Assessing Officer ought to have excluded the opening balance of sundry creditors lying in the books as on 31/03/2012 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC erred in not holding that - the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in levying interest under the provisions of section 234A, 23B and 234C of the Act at ITA No.633/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 5 Rs.11,09,400/-, Rs.33,28,200/- and Rs.827/- respectively under the facts and circumstances of the case. Without prejudice the rate, period and quantum on which the interest is levied is not discernable under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 11. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 23.10.2014 declaring income at Rs.4,17,240. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee filed reply. The AO after discussing the issue in detail noted that there was a mismatch of sundry creditors to the extent of Rs.3,00,68,404 which added back to the total income of the assessee. 3. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) issued 5 notices on different dates and the fifth notice was issued on 19.5.2023 for which the assessee sought for adjournment, the evidence is placed at page 27 of PB. However, the CIT(Appeals) noted that “No response (Adjournment but no submission)” and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of material available before him. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the course of hearing, the assessee has filed additional evidence along with affidavit as under:- 1. Copy of confirmation/ledger received from the supplier, M/s. TTK Prestige Ltd – Annx. G. ITA No.633/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 5 2. Copy of confirmation/ledger received from the supplier, M/s.V-Gurad Industries – Annx. H. 3. Copy of confirmation/ledger received from the supplier, M/s. Meridian Marketing Services. 4. Copy of confirmation/ledger received from the supplier, M/s. Chitra Engineering Works. 5. Copy of confirmation/ledger received from the supplier, M/s. Royal Prime Movers. 5. The ld. AR submitted the above evidence could not be collated and produced before the lower authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic period. These documents demonstrate that the assessee’s sundry creditors were overstated due to corrupt data on account of over fluctuation and corruption of hard disc and are very essential for appreciation of the facts of the case. Therefore, it was prayed that these additional evidence may be admitted for adjudication. 6. After hearing both the sides and considering the explanation of the assessee, we admit the additional evidence for adjudication. 7. The ld. AR further requested that a chance may be given to the assessee and definitely he will be able to establish the case before the CIT(Appeals) and not seek any adjournment. 8. The ld. DR opposed the request made by the ld. AR of the assessee and submitted that the assessee was granted various opportunities. 9. After considering the rival submissions, we note that since against the fifth notice dated 19.5.2023 issued by the CIT(Appeals), the assessee sought for adjournment which has not been considered by the ITA No.633/Bang/2023 Page 5 of 5 CIT(Appeals) and he decided the appeal of the assessee. In the interest of justice, we accept the prayer of the assessee for another opportunity before the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal is remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision as per law in the light of additional evidence, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce all the relevant documents to substantiate its claim and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. 10. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 03 rd day of November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 03 rd November, 2023. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.