TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2021 04. IT(SS)A No. 14 2017-18 07.08.2024 30.09.2021 05. ITA No. 516 2018-19 07.08.2024 30.09.2021 06. ITA No. 517 2019-20 07.08.2024 30.09.2021 2. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention herein that these group of appeals are being fixed for hearing on various occasions i.e., on 28.10.2024, 09.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 08.01.2025, 10.01.2025 and finally on 13.01.2025. During the aforesaid date of hearing, the assessee was represented by Shri Subhash Agrawal, Advocate on 28.10.2024, but the case was adjourned for certain reasons like to obtain a report from the Ld. AO and to production of assessment records etc. On next date of hearing dated 09.12.2024, Shri Mahesh Jain, employee of the company put up an appearance to adjourn the matter with written request, therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.12.2024. Again, on 23.12.2024 when the matter was fixed up for, no-one has put up an appearance on behalf of the assessee, however, certain connected issues are fixed for hearing on 13.01.2025, therefore, the matter are adjourned on 08.01.2025. When the matter was called for hearing on 08.01.2025, it is observed that no-one on behalf of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....01.2025 (filed on the same date) submitted that the matter be adjourned for at least 1 or 2 months, inter alia, the matter has been going on since long and had been adjourned for one or the other reason, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the assessee's request for adjournment of the matter for a period of 1 or 2 months and, thus, fix the same for hearing on 13.01.2025. It is clarified that no further adjournment will be permitted and the matter in absence of representation of either of the parties would be proceeded with and disposed of. The case is adjourned to 13.01.2025." 3. On the next hearing dated 13.01.2025, again there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, neither any application of adjournment was placed on record, therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing and adjudication. After hearing the Ld. CIT-DR and on perusal of the material available on record the cases are taken up for adjudication. 4. On perusal of the case records, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation on account of delay in filing of appeal by 35 days has pointed out by the registry. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s against the G.P rate of 8% applied by the A.O. on undisclosed sales, thereby, wrongly confirming the addition of Rs.44,78,935/- over and above declared G.P. of Rs.74,64,891/- in the return filed u/s 153A. 4. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,34,30/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged commission @ I% of the alleged undisclosed sale. 5. For that the Ld. ClT(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to compute proper interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as per law. 6. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the Additional grounds of appeal in ITA No. 513/RPR/2024 9. At the very beginning of the hearing, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the issues in the aforesaid appeals of the assessee for AY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 are common and identical. A chart showing the nature of additions along with quantum in the respective assessment years has been placed before us for the sake of reference and clarity, the same is culled out as under: 10. The brief facts of the case as reiterated, are that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the assessment framed / the demand raised for instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority. 14.2 On this issue, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee shall not be admitted, as the additional ground should only be for the issues raising the question of law where it is necessary to consider that question to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Whereas in present case the issue raised does not constitute any question of law, which is necessary to assess the tax liability of the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR placed her reliance on the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs ADIT, CPC reported in (2024) 164 taxmann.com 498 (Ahd. Trib.), dated 16.07.2024, while dealing with such an objection by the department, the tribunal has held as under: 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in that case the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from facts as found by the authorities below. The Court further held that the question of law may be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in its aforesaid order, after deliberating upon the similarly worded approval granted by the Jt. CIT, Range Central, Raipur, had observed, that as the A.O. in the case before them had obtained a prior approval of the Jt. CIT, therefore, the mandate of Section 153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon'ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon'ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter granting the approval revealed the subjective satisfaction that was arrived at based on the documents that were produced before the Jt. CIT. It was further observed, that on a perusal of the language of the approval letter, it cannot be presumed that there was no application of mind as the approval need not be a detailed assessment order. The Hon'ble High Court after pressing into service Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed. 7.6 As the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame therefore, are dismissed being bereft of merits. 16. Ground No. 3: Regarding confirmation of addition of Rs. 44,78,935/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unaccounted income of the assessee by estimating the Gross Profit of the assessee at 8% of the unaccounted sales. 16.1 On this issue while making the addition Ld. AO has observed that in view of submissions of the assessee, incriminating documents/ loose papers / data found from laptop, hard disk and other digital evidence found and seized from the various premises, statement recorded during the search and seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under: AY Unaccounted Sales (A) GP on Sale (B) Total Unaccounted profit (A* B) Declaration of the assessee Addition 2011-12 72,841,269 8% 5,827,302 2,183,330 3,643,972 2012-13 16,920,113 8% 1,353,609 507,160 846,449 2013-14 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not found the estimation of 5% to be justifiable, therefore, the same has been raised by another 3%. The issue has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), however, there was no representation by the assessee on 06 occasions when the appeal was fixed for hearing. Under such circumstances, we do not find any extraneous exercise of powers by the Ld. CIT(A), whereas Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to decide the appeal based on facts on record available before him after deliberating thoroughly at length on the merits of the issue, to rest the prolonged litigations pending before him. As the conduct of assessee before us is also observed to be evasive and of a non-compliant, as the group matters of the assessee were fixed for hearing on various occasion, but the assessee remains non-responsive or has represented only for seeking of adjournments for one or another reasons, which are not found to be reasonable. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations are of the considered opinion that there was no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in absence of any plausible explanation by the assessee to dislodge the same. We, thus, uphold the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03,282 7,60,264 Drolia Electrosteel Pvt.Ltd. 11.03.2013to 22.03.2013 200.640 53,25,999 50,72,379 Balbeer Rolling Mills Ltd 19.03.2013 46.520 18,02,055 18,06,700 Lakshmichand Ispat 09.05.2013 3.245 1,22,727 1,22,727 Total 6,87,05,631 During the assessment proceeding the assessee company was asked to explain as to why in absence to justified explanation with documentary evidence, and show cause why in absence of proper explanation and reconciliation with books of accounts, the above cash transaction should not be treated as your unaccounted cash transaction and added back to the total income for respective year. In reply the assessee submitted that all the above transaction are not related to the regular books of accounts. All the above transactions are duly part of the accounted sales as per the audited books of accounts and the respective taxation on the same had been duly paid with, sir, addition of the same of the same again will lead to double taxation and will not prevail justice for the assessee. The contention of the assessee has been considered however it is not acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogus sale transactions on the basis of incriminating material impounded during the search & seizure action conducted on the premises of the assessee and a commission of 1% is added to the income of the assessee. Though the assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted before the Ld. AO that all the transactions of RTGS are part of regular books of accounts of the assessee accounted for a sale and as per audited books of accounts, the tax on such transactions are being offered, therefore, it would not be justifiable to assessee the same income again. On this issue, Ld. AO had made exhaustive exercise to find out cash payments by the assessee against the RTGS received from various parties, he consider the contentions of the assessee but are not found acceptable for the reason that the assessee is involved in providing of Bogus Sales bills in lieu of commission, therefore, in light of incriminating documents commission @ 1 % was added to the income of the assessee. The issue has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) however, there was no representation by the assessee on 06 occasions, when the appeal was fixed for hearing. Under such circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pply mutatis mutandis to the grounds of appeal raised in these appeals, accordingly, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No. 514, 515, 516 & 517/RPR/2024 and IT(SS)A No. 14/RPR/2024 are dismissed in terms of our observations in ITA No. 513/RPR/2024. 22. In combined result, IT(SS)A No. 14 & ITA No. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517 RPR 2024 filed by the assessee are rendered as dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observation. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2025. ============= Document 1 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Raipur Bench In the matter of: Sarthak Ispat (P) Ltd. ITA (SS) A /RPR/2024 .. Appellant vs. Respondent ACIT, Central Circle -2, Raipur In the matter of: An application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Ld. Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Raipur-3, dated 08.08.2024 relevant to AY: 2014-2015. Document 2 1. That an order was passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A), Raipur-3 for the A.Y .: 2014 - 2015 on 08.08.2024 in connection with an appeal filed against assessment order u/s 153A dated 30.09.2021. 2. That the last day filing the appeal was on or around 07.10.2024. 3. That the appeal wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cument 4 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'DB' BENCH; Raipur In the matter of: Sarthak Ispat (P) Ltd. Appellant Vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2, Raipur .Respondent In the matter of: ITA No. 513/RPR/24 for A.Y: 2014-15 Application for admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal 1. This application of the petitioner/appellant most respectfully prays for admission of the following additional grounds of appeal which are purely legal in nature. 2. The additional grounds of appeal raised now are as follows - 1. For that the A.O. was not justified in passing a consolidated / common order for A.Y .: 2011 - 2012 to 2019 - 2020 in violation of the mandate of sec. 153D of the Act, thereby, vitiating the entire proceedings and demand raised for the instant year. 2. (a) For that the assessment framed and/or demand raised for the instant year is vitiated in law and is nullity for want of prior approval of the approving authority. (b) Without prejudice to the above, the assessment framed and / or demand raised is vitiated in law and is nullity inasmuch as approval has been granted in a manner which is not in consonance with law. Document 5 That the addi....