Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Kcm Infratech India Private Limited, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), ... on 27 June, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 292/Hyd/2018 and S.A. No. 127/Hyd/2018.
Assessment Year: 2014-15
KCM Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-tax Officer,
Hyderabad. Ward - 2(1), Hyderabad.
PAN - AAFCK 3615 D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Ravindra Chenji
Revenue by : Shri H. Phani Raju
Date of hearing : 21-06-2018
Date of pronouncement : 27-06-2018
O RDE R
PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.:
This is an appeal of the Assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) - 8, Hyderabad, dated 22/11/2017 for AY 2014-15.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee company, engaged in the business of infrastructure development, filed its return of income declaring "NIL" income. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noted that the assessee had shown unsecured loans from its directors of Rs. 6,30,85,000/- and from eight loan creditors of Rs. 39,50,000/-. AO asked the assessee to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. With regard to the eight unsecured loan creditors for an amount of Rs. 39.50 lakhs, the employee of the assessee who attended the assessment proceedings before the AO submitted that Shri G. Krishna Mohan, director of the assessee, was busy in the arrangements of his brother's son marriage 2 ITA No. 292/H/18 & SA No. 127/H/18 KCM Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.
and could not attend the hearing and furnished all the details except the confirmations of the said eight persons. Since the assessee failed to furnish the confirmations from the said creditors, though the enough time given to the assessee, the AO made the addition of Rs. 39.50 lakhs towards unsecured loans from the 8 creditors.
3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and filed a petition under rule 46A seeking to admit the additional evidence and confirmations from the creditors stating the same could not file before the AO as the mother of one directors of the company was not well/ busy with his brother's son marriage and in his absence the confirmations could not be filed.
4. The CIT(A) refused to accept the additional evidence filed by the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO on the ground that the reason given for seeking admission of additional evidence seems to be a casual one and without much credence in absence of any further details along with documentary evidence and also AR failed to establish that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for producing the evidences which were called by the AO.
5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:
1.1The order of the Commissioner of Income tax Appeals {CIT(A)} dated 22/11/2017 in ITA No.219/CIT(A)-8/Hyd/2016-17 is against the law and facts.
2. The CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46 A of the I T Rules.
3. The CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence i.e. confirmation letters from the Unsecured creditors and decided the matter on merits, instead of rejecting the same on frivolous grounds.
4. The ClT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.39,50,000 under section 68 of he Income tax Act 1961.3 ITA No. 292/H/18 & SA No. 127/H/18
KCM Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.
5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds as occasion may require."
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the view that the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence by way of confirmations from the loan creditors and forwarded the same to the AO for a remand report, as the assessee explained the reasons for not submitting the confirmations before the AO. In stead, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee without admitting the additional evidence and without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, interest of justice will be served if the matter is restored to the file of AO for deciding the appeal of the assessee on merits, as the AO has also passed ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the file to the AO for deciding the appeal on merits after examining the details, including confirmations of the loan creditors and pass order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
8. As the corresponding appeal of SA has been decided as above, the SA filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and SA is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 27 th June, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (V. DURGA RAO)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 27 th June, 2018
kv
4
ITA No. 292/H/18 & SA No. 127/H/18
KCM Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd.
Copy to:-
1) KCM Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., C/o Ravindra Chenji, Advocate, C - 308, 4-1-970, Upasana, Ahuja Estate, Abids, Hyderabad - 1.
2) ITO, Ward - 2(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad
3) CIT(A) - 8, Hyderabad
4) Pr. CIT - 2, Hyderabad
5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
6) Guard File