Sai Enterprises, Aurangabad V. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad

ITSSA 16/PUN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3052 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 69A; 13; 153C

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos.12 to 16/PUN/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2014-15 Sai Enterprises, Plot No. E 10, MIDC Area, Waluj MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136 PAN : AAWFS8713L ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Aurangabad ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Balaji P. Singh & Shri Santosh B. Garud Revenue by : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 26-08-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 29-08-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These five appeals filed by the assessee against the common order dated 21-11-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 to 2014-15, respectively. 2. We find that all these appeals were filed with a delay of 20 days. To condone the said delay, the assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 11-02- 2020 explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same upon 2 IT(SS)A Nos. 12 to 16/PUN/2020, A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2014-15 hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the ld. AR are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the appeals in time. Therefore, the delay of 20 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts and upon hearing and with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 12/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2009-10. 5. The only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the order of AO ex-parte of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. We note that the assessee is a partnership firm conducts its business under the name and style as “M/s. Sai Enterprises”. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in scrap and manufacturing of wooden pallet and plastic granules. A search action was conducted at the business and residential premises of different members/associate concern of the Jhaveri Group at Mumbai/Aurangabad and their family members and business concerns on 20-08-2014. According to the AO, the said group is primarily engaged in the business of flexible food packaging products and real estate business etc. and the assessee firm is connected with the said Jhaveri Group. Further, the AO held that during the course of said search certain documents were found and seized and some of which are incriminating in nature and related to the assessee firm. After 3 IT(SS)A Nos. 12 to 16/PUN/2020, A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2014-15 recording satisfaction a notice u/s. 153C of the Act issue to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on-line declaring a total income at Rs.17,62,775/-. Under scrutiny, the AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response to which, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and furnished all the details as called by the AO. The AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.22,18,850/- inter alia making additions on account of payment to Non Banking Financial Corporation (NBFC) u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of ad-hoc disallowances of expenses etc. and on account of cash payment u/s. 69A of the Act vide its order dated 29-10-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Having not satisfied with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. Aggrieved by the ex-parte order of CIT(A), now, the assessee is before us. 7. The ld. AR, Shri Balaji P. Singh and Shri Santosh B. Garud submits that there was no opportunity for the assessee before the CIT(A) and the assessee is ready to prosecute the appeal before the CIT(A), if this Tribunal grants an opportunity again for the assessee. The ld. DR vehemently opposed the submissions of ld. AR and submits that the CIT(A) had given fourteen opportunities to the assessee in spite of which the assessee could not prosecute the issues before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) tried the issues on merits considering the material available on record and supported the order of CIT(A). He prayed to dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. Having heard the submissions of ld. AR and ld. DR, we note that the additions/disallowances made by the AO were remained non-prosecuted before the CIT(A). The contention of ld. AR is that one more opportunity 4 IT(SS)A Nos. 12 to 16/PUN/2020, A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2014-15 may be granted to the assessee and the assessee is ready to prosecute its issues before the CIT(A). On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the AO made additions on account of payment to NBFC without deducting tax which requires assistance of the assessee by producing the evidence. Further, the additions on account of ad-hoc disallowances relating to expenditure i.e. hotel, petrol, repairs and maintenance, truck and vehicle and on account of cash payment, in our opinion, requires assistance of assessee to substantiate its claims, admittedly, there was no opportunity for the assessee before the CIT(A) for prosecuting the issues raised against the order of AO. Therefore, taking into consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of ld. AR and ld. DR, we deem it proper to the remand the issues to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 16/PUN/2020, A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2014-15 10. We find that the issues raised in the appeals and the facts in IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 16/PUN/2020 are identical to IT(SS)A No. 12/PUN/2020 except the variance in amount. Since, the facts in IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 16/PUN/2020 are similar to IT(SS)A No. 12/PUN/2020, the findings given by us while deciding the grounds of appeal of assessee in IT(SS)A No. 12/PUN/2020 would mutatis mutandis apply to IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 5 IT(SS)A Nos. 12 to 16/PUN/2020, A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2014-15 16/PUN/2020, as well. All the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, accordingly. 11. In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 29 th August, 2022. रदव आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT, Central, Nagpur 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ दनजी सदचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune