The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0711 (All-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH

VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. & RAMIT KOCHAR, A.M.

Sangam Structural Ltd. v. ITO

Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 07/Alld./2018 (arising out of ITA No. 53/Alld/2015)

3 February, 2021

Against Assessee.

Appellant by: Ashish Bansal, Advocate

Respondent by: A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

ORDER

Ramit Kochar, A.M.

This Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing Number 07/Alld./2018 arising out of ITA No. 53/Alld./2015, for assessment year 2010-11 was filed by assessee on 4-5-2018 and is filed within the time stipulated under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter called the tribunal ) has vide appellate Order, dt. 21-12-2017 has allowed the revenue s appeal in ITA No. 53/Alld./2015 for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by afore-stated appellate order passed by tribunal and has now preferred this MA before the tribunal under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act seeking to correct mistake apparent from records in the appellate Order, dt. 21-12-2017 passed by the tribunal.

2. It is the say of the assessee in this M.A. that learned assessing officer (hereinafter called the AO ) while passing assessment order under section 143(3) of the 1961 Act, dt. 14-3-2013 , inter alia , made an additions to the tune of Rs. 37,60,601 on account of credits from one M/s R R Steel Industries, primarily on the grounds that the address given in PAN was different from the address of M/s R R Steel Industries as mentioned in the confirmatory letter etc.. It is also the say of the assessee in this M.A. that the assessee explained before learned Commissioner (Appeals) (hereinafter called the CIT (A) ) that discrepancy in the address was due to the fact that Mrs. Reema Mittal was proprietor of concern namely M/s R R Steel Industries and PAN was allotted at the address of proprietor, Mrs. Reema Mittal which was at address at 706, Siddhartha Apartment , MP Enclave, Pitampura , New Delhi, while address of her proprietary concern was at 216, Agarwal Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. It is averred that learned Commissioner (Appeals) whose powers are co-terminus with that of powers of assessing officer, accepted the contentions of the assessee and correctly deleted the additions to the income as were made by the assessing officer to the tune of Rs. 37,60,601. It is further averred that the tribunal , vide appellate Order, dt. 21-12-2017 erred in reversing the appellate order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and confirming the additions as were made by assessing officer , as Revenue in their arguments before tribunal have prayed only for setting aside the matter back to the file of learned assessing officer , while tribunal erroneously went ahead beyond what was sought by revenue in its grounds of appeal and erroneously allowed the appeal of revenue instead of setting aside the issue for re-adjudication by the assessing officer. It is stated that learned Commissioner (Appeals) adjudicated the issue by admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee without confronting the same to the assessing officer as is required under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, while tribunal went ahead and decided the matter against the assessee and in favour of revenue. It is claimed that paper book of as many as 70 pages were filed before tribunal which contained information of R R Steel Industries for three years from 1-4-2008 to 31-3-2010, while relevant year under consideration was only ay 2010-11. It is claimed that said information was duly certified by authorized persons and credential of the party namely M/s R R Steel Industries was well known. It is also claimed that learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee after due verification and thus tribunal erred in reversing the appellate order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is submitted that rather no additional evidences were filed by assessee with learned Commissioner (Appeals) and that once the issue of discrepancy in address was resolved, the ld Commissioner (Appeals) correctly granted relief to the assessee.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT