TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions under Section 43B is allowable only when sum is actually paid by the assessee. In the case on hand, the AO says the assessee had not paid ₹ 87,70,509/- out of its books for the impugned AY whereas the assessee says when the assessee submitted the excise returns for the FY 2010-11, it is evident that the expenditure had been genuinely incurred. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we remit the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to ascertain whether the assessee has paid the said amount or not and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim by way of filing documentary evidence before the AO. Thus, the grounds raised on this issue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Addition u/s. 69C in respect of the assessee creditors - AO noticed that the assessee had taken unsecured loans form the following creditors and when the AO called for information from the, he noticed that there were huge differences in amounts payable by the assessee and receivables by the creditors - HELD THAT:- It is not clear as to whether the difference in amounts arisen are related to the current year or carried forward f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - SUPREME COURT] - The assessee has raised this ground before us for the first time for claiming bad debts and in support of the same, the assessee has produced some additional evidences vide its letter dated 16/01/2019 as well as relied on some case law, which are placed in the paper book - To meet the ends of justice, we accept the additional evidences and remit the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 146/H/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2021 - Satbeer Singh Godara , Member ( J ) And Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Member ( A ) For the Appellant : P. Murali Mohana Rao For the Respondents : Sunil Kumar Pandey ORDER PER L. P. SAHU, A. M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - 1, Hyderabad's order dated 22/09/2017 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) rws 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383, which are as under: 16. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) the ITAT has jurisdiction to examine any question of law though not raised before the CIT(A) but is raised before the ITAT for the first time. 17. Before The Hon'ble IT AT, The appellant pleads to accept the Revised Computation of Total Income and Revised Income Tax liability for the AY 2011-12 and allow the claim of Bad debts as an additional evidence filed vide Paper Book - II 18. The appellant pleads before the Hon'ble IT AT to accept the claim of bad debts amounting to ₹ 2,68,78,576/- as per the Revised Computation annexed in Paper Book - II in the form of additional evidence. 19. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the liability to pay creditors has not yet squared off and thus, Assessee Company is liable to pay to its creditor. Therefore, addition made u/s. 69C is not justified as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 20. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have annulled the addition made u/s 68 for additions made to fixed assets of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee submitted the copies of return of excisable goods and availment of CENVAT credit for the year ended on 31.03.2011. The AO observed that the return clearly shows that assessee has already CENVAT credit to the assessee's credit and they had paid the excise duty out of this credit available to them and the assessee company had not paid ₹ 87,70,509/- out of its book for the current year under consideration i.e., FY 2010-11 In view of this, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 87,70,509/- u/s. 69C of the Act. 6.1. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that when the assessee company submitted the excise returns for the FY 2010-11, it is evident that the expenditure has been genuinely incurred. Further, it was submitted that the said expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of business, is an allowable business expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act. It was submitted that in accordance with the prudent business norms, the assessee claimed such expenditure in the P L A/c for the year under consideration. 6.2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not submitted whether these CENVAT payments had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantiate its claim by way of filing documentary evidence before the AO. Thus, the grounds raised on this issue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 7. As regards ground No. 10 to 12 Ground No. 19 raised as additional ground are regarding the addition of ₹ 22,07,373/- made u/s. 69C of the Act in respect of the assessee creditors, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had taken unsecured loans form the following creditors and when the AO called for information from the, he noticed that there were huge differences in amounts payable by the assessee and receivables by the creditors, which are as follows: S. No Name of creditors Payable as per assessee Receivable as per creditors Difference amount 1 Sri Ashish M. Agarwal 18,33,522 23,33,522 5,00,000 2 M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. 23,75,708 23,94,668 18,960 3 M/s Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 5,20,482/- for the addition made to fixed assets. He, therefore, disallowed the said amount u/s. 68 of the Act. 8.1. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that invoking section 68 by the AO is incorrect as it relates to unexplained cash credits wherein the assessee would be required to explain the source of funds, whereas, in the instant case the addition made to fixed assets is being doubted. Hence, the disallowance is wrong. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) remitted the issue to the AO with a direction to verify the bills/invoices/vouchers and bank accounts for payments and then allow to the extent of evidence submitted. 8.2. After considering the submissions of both the parties, since before us also the assessee has not substantiated its case by way of documentary evidence, we remit this issue to the file of AO to decide the issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim by way of filing documentary evidence before the AO. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. As regards ground No. 21, which is raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
