REACKON CONCRETES PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR V. DCIT OR ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 42/NAG/2024

AI Insights

This case involves Reackon Concretes Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-2018. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.22,48,159 to the assessee's income, identified as unaccounted money camouflaged as recoveries from debtors, and the addition of Rs.65,486 for delayed deposit of employee's provident fund contributions. The Assessing Officer had initially added these amounts after scrutiny of the company's financial records, particularly noting unusual patterns in cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) upheld these additions due to lack of sufficient documentation from the assessee. The Tribunal, while upholding the dismissal of the provident fund issue, remitted the cash deposit issue back to the CIT(A) for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32305 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHADEV VICHARE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.42/NAG./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018 Reackon Concretes Private Limited, Akansha, Opposite Hotel Janki, Central Avenue, Gandhibagh, NAGPUR PIN – 440 032. PAN AACCB6382K Maharashtra. vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Circle-4, NAGPUR – 440 001. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Mahadev Vichare, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2025 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order dated 15.03.2023, of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 254 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavit seeking 2 ITA.No.42/NAG./2024 for condonation of the delay . I am satisfied with the averments stated in the affidavit and condone the delay of 254 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and has filed it’s return of income on 15.09.2017 declaring income at Rs.21,40,590/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act calling explanation of the assessee. In response to the said notices, the assessee has uploaded details and documents which were verified on test-check basis by the Assessing Officer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed the deposit of cash in bank account, is mainly upon recovery from the debtors. However, on examination of the pattern of opening cash in hand on the first day of all the months i.e., for F.Ys. 2015-2016 and 2016- 2017, the amount is of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.17,00,000/-, which pattern is followed up-to August 2016. But, after August, 2016, the assessee suddenly jacked up the cash in hand. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee was involved in an attempt to camouflage the unaccounted money as having received from debtors. 3 ITA.No.42/NAG./2024 He further noted that during demonetization period the assessee has unaccounted deposit of Rs.32,00,000/-. On an average the Assessing Officer gave benefit of Rs.9,50,841/- as cash in hand and added the differential sum of Rs.22,48,159/- [i.e., Rs.32,00,000/- (-) Rs.9,50,841/-] to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee-company deposited the employee’s contribution to the provident fund beyond the “due date”, the Assessing Officer considered the amount as income of the assessee as defined u/sec.36(1)(va) and u/sec.2(24)(x) and added a sum of Rs.65,486/- to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.44,54,235/- as against the returned income of Rs.21,40,590/- vide order dated 27.12.2019. 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), in absence of any documents placed on record, confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.42/NAG./2024 6. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the authorities below erred in law in making addition u/sec.68 of the Act. He submitted that the assessee is ready to furnish all the documentary evidences in respect of addition made on account of differential cash deposit of Rs.22,49,159/- estimated by the lower authorities in the event of granting one more opportunity to substantiate it’s case in the larger interest of justice. 7. The Learned DR on the other hand strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee did not chose to appear before the lower authorities by placing relevant documents in respect of cash deposit of Rs.32 lakhs during demonetization period and, the average benefit of Rs.9,50,841/- has been rightly given by the lower authorities. He submitted that the addition made by the lower authorities be confirmed by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 8. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. I find that it is an admitted fact that before the lower authorities the assessee did not file any documentary evidence to substantiate it’s case with respect to cash deposited during demonetization period. However, upon hearing the 5 ITA.No.42/NAG./2024 submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee during the course of hearing to the effect that the authorities below did not altogether ruled-out the cash deposit made during the demonetization period and had given average benefit and as such, in the event of providing one more opportunity to the assessee, the assessee company is ready to furnish all the information as called for by the learned CIT(A). I, therefore, in the larger interest of justice, deem it fit and appropriate to remit the issue of addition made u/sec.68 of the Act on account of differential amount of cash deposit in bank arrived at by the lower authorities at Rs.22,48,159/-, back to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate it’s case with all documentary evidences before him. The learned CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the event of assessee’s failure to substantiate it’s case, the learned CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per fact and law. Needless to say, it is the assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to plead and prove it’s case in consequential proceedings. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee during the course of hearing did not press ground no.2 which is pertains to employee’s 6 ITA.No.42/NAG./2024 contribution of PF amount deposited by the assessee beyond the “due date” which issue has now been settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) against the assessee by holding that it is an essential condition for the deduction that such amounts are deposited on or before the due dates mandated by the concerned law. Accordingly, ground of appeal no.2 of the assessee is dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.02.2025. Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur, Dated 03rd February, 2025 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Nagpur concerned 4. The CIT, Nagpur concerned 5. The D.R. ITAT, Nagpur SMC-Bench, Nagpur 6. Guard File. //By Order// True Copy Sr. Private Secretary : ITAT : Nagpur Bench NAGPUR. "