Sanskruti and Aditya Associates, Pune V. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Pune

ITA 825/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sanskruti and Aditya Associates against an order passed by the Pr.CIT-2, Pune, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The Pr.CIT had found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as it failed to adequately address the additions that should have been made under section 68 instead of section 41(1), and it overlooked a sum of Rs.43.86 lakh. The assessee contested the lack of an adequate opportunity of hearing, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137230 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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.825/PUN/2022 िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanskruti and Aditya Associates, D-8, Melody Apartments, 12 ICS Colony, University Road, Kastur Kunj, Bhosale Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411 007 PAN : ABWFS4889E Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04-10-2021 passed by the ld. Pr.CIT-2, Pune u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 350 days. The assesee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons. We are satisfied with Assessee by: Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by: Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing 22-02-2023 Date of pronouncement 27-02-2023 ITA No.825/PUN/2022 Sanskruti and Aditya Associates 2 the reasons so stated. The delay is, therefore, condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring total income of Rs.3.55 crore. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.4.50 crore. The ld. Pr.CIT observed on perusal of records that the assessee had shown current liabilities at Rs.5.77 crore, out of which details were given only for Rs.1.92 crore. Further, advances of Rs.3.41 crore were received against flat bookings. On the basis of these facts, the ld. Pr.CIT opined that the assessee was unable to prove the sundry creditors to the extent of Rs.43,86,149/- [Rs.5,77,40,250 – (Rs.1,92,23,096 + Rs.3,41,31,005)]. As against that, the AO had made disallowance of Rs.10.00 lakh only u/s.41(1) of the Act. The ld. Pr.CIT, held in the ex parte order, that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, firstly, because the addition ought to have been made u/s.68 instead of section 41(1) and secondly, the entire amount would have been taxed including a sum of Rs.43.86 lakh. ITA No.825/PUN/2022 Sanskruti and Aditya Associates 3 4. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the ld. Pr.CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the above scores. He, however, passed the order ex parte u/s.263 for the reasons that the assessee could not furnish necessary details. The ld. AR submitted that necessary details were available. It was stressed that no adequate opportunity of hearing was given. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set- aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. Pr.CIT for passing a fresh order u/s.263 after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 27 th February, 2023 Satish ITA No.825/PUN/2022 Sanskruti and Aditya Associates 4 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The Respondent; 3. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “A” / DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune 4. गाड फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 22-02-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 22-02-2023 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. *