Income-Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal V. Shri Rajendra Dewoo Naik, Sindhudurg

ITA 751/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Kudal against Shri Rajendra Dewoo Naik concerning the assessment year 2013-2014. The appeal was directed against the order of the NFAC, which had reversed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to unsecured loans and sundry creditors amounting to Rs.97,46,168 and Rs.1,90,15,648 respectively. The Tribunal examined the submissions and the remand report dated 29.05.2019, which had been accepted by the NFAC, and found that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137332 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: B. Jayalakshmi vs. ACIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.), CIT vs. DM Purnesh [2020] 426 ITR 169 Kar.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.751/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, Ward Kudal, 940, MIDC Corner, Gawaldev Wadi, Vengurla Road, Kudal Dist. Sindhudurg – 416 550 Maharashtra. vs. Shri Rajendra Dewoo Naik, Kinale, Kavthani, Tal – Sawantwadi Dist. Sindhudurg. PIN – 416 514 Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Shashank Deogadkar For Assessee : Shri Satya Prakash Singh Date of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013- 2014, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2022-23/1044643753(1), dated 12.08.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue raise the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 1) “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of sundry creditors holding that the genuineness of the trade creditors does not appear to be in doubt. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring the fact that in none of the cases in the remand report the AO has stated that he has examined the creditworthiness of the creditor. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the additions in respect of unsecured loans taken by the appellant considering them to be genuine. 5) For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s sole substantive ground in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)'s action reversing assessment findings adding unsecured loans and sundry creditors of Rs.97,46,168/- and Rs.1,90,15,648/-; respectively, as unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the Act. The NFAC’s findings to this effect read as under : 3 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 4 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 5 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 6 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 4. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the NFAC has followed the Assessing Officer’s remand report dated 29.05.2019 itself that the impugned addition of Rs.2,87,61,816/- is not warranted since the latter authority had duly verified all the relevant facts in the remand proceedings. The Revenue is fair enough in submitting a copy of this clinching remand report before us. That being the case, we conclude in light of B. Jayalakshmi vs. ACIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.) and CIT vs. DM Purnesh [2020] 426 ITR 169 Kar.) that the Revenue could hardly be treated as an aggrieved party in case of a favourable remand report submitted before the CIT(A). We accordingly find no merit in the Revenue’s above substantive grounds. The same stand rejected. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. 7 ITA.No.751/PUN./2022 Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25 th May, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT-1, Pune. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.