ACIT, Circle 1,Meerut. Vs. Anand Duplex Ltd., 85, Saket, Meerut.
December, 06th 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH `A' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.5096/Del /20112
Assessment Year : 2009-10
ACIT, Circle 1, Vs. Anand Duplex Ltd.,
Meerut. 85, Saket,
Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Adv.
Revenue by : Mrs. Anuradha Misra, CIT(DR)
PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M.
This appeal of the department is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-
Meerut, dated 03.07.2012, relevant to assessment year 2009-10, whereby besides
challenging the action of the CIT(A) being in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules,
department has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.2,29,49,502/- as unproved
sundry creditors ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to confirm them and another
deletion of addition of Rs.1,27,27,605/- being inflated purchases out of total purchases of
Rs.12,72,76,048/- ignoring the fact that letters of enquiry in 12 cases sent to the parties
by the Assessing Officer remained un-complied with and purchases to the magnitude of
Rs.8,34,01,381 remained unproved out of which Assessing Officer disallowed merely
Rs.1,27,27,605/- treating only 10% of the total purchases as inflated and thus added only
a bare minimum amount out of unconfirmed sums of Rs.8.34 crores by taking support
from various case laws.
2 I.T.A. No.5096/Del./2012
(A.Y. : 2009-10)
2. At the very outset, Ld.DR submitted that assessee failed to get confirmed the
amounts as mentioned in the grounds of appeal before the Assessing Officer despite
having been given number of opportunities whereas CIT(A) has accepted such additional
evidence having been filed before him without waiting for the remand report sought for
which was yet to be replied by the Assessing Officer and after considering such
additional evidence deleted the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. So,
order of CIT(A) is not only violative of Rule 46A of the Rules, but also not in conformity
with law inasmuch as additions have been deleted without verification having been made
by CIT(A) at his level. It was thus pleaded to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and
restore the matter on his file for re-consideration of the appeal afresh.
4. Ld.Counsel for the assessee has very fairly submitted that provisions of Rule 46A
of the Rules appears to have not been complied with by the CIT(A) as pointed out by the
Ld.DR. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to have fair play in the matter, appeal can
be restored back to the CIT(A) for re-consideration and appropriate action.
5. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record as well as case
laws cited by the department in the ground filed with memorandum of appeal and find
that certain additional evidence has not only been admitted by the CIT(A), but
considering the same, the impugned additions have also been deleted, when reply to
remand report had not yet come. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and
material on record, we hold that order of CIT(A) is not only violative of Rule 46A of the
Rules, but also in contravention of relevant provisions of law. As such while accepting
the appeal of the department, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back
on the file of the CIT(A) for re-consideration of the appeal after giving due opportunity to
3 I.T.A. No.5096/Del./2012
(A.Y. : 2009-10)
the assessee as well as to the Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order while
complying with the provisions of Rule 46A and other relevant provisions of the law. We
hold and direct accordingly.
6. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue gets accepted for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 03.12.2012.
(SHAMIM YAHYA) (U.B.S. BEDI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : Dec. 03, 2012.
Copy of the order forwarded to:-
4. CIT(A), Meerut.
5. CIT(ITAT) Deputy Registrar, ITAT