TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnish the details in this regard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.66 Crore made on account of trade payable shown in the balance sheet by accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee without appreciating the fact the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings to furnished the details in this regard. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 99.86 Crore made on account of Current Liabilities shown in the balance sheet made by accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity during the assessment proceedings to furnish the details in this regard. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 71.65 Crore made on account of Exceptional charges/expenses by accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee without appreciating the fact the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Rules. We observed from the impugned order that assessee has filed additional evidences by filing under Rule 46A and the same was remanded to the jurisdictional AO for report and JAO has not filed any remand report even though there were several reminders forwarded to him and ld. CIT (A) relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. (1994) (207 ITR 979) (Calcutta) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) (53 ITR 225) (SC) has decided the issue based on the material available on record. Therefore, ground no.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. With regard to merits of the issues, we observed that ld. CIT (A) has considered the detailed submissions of the assessee and decided the issue of difference in sales turnover, trade payables, current liabilities and disallowance of exceptional charges/expenses. Ld. CIT (A) has dealt with the issue of difference in sales turnover at paras 7.4 to 7.4.2 which is reproduced as under :- "7.4 Difference in Sales Turnover This addition of Rs. 7.86 Crore has been made by the AO merely on the basis of discrepancy in the Sales Turn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Profit and Loss Account is on account of sale of Plant and Machinery amounting to Rs. 8.01 Crore during the year. The said sale of Plant and Machinery is not only duly evidenced by sale invoices, but also duly reflected in the Form GSTR-1 and in the Fixed Assets Schedule (forming part of the Balance Sheet). It is evident that the said sale of Plant and Machinery, though captured in the Annual Tax Statement of the appellant in Form 26AS; was not at all required to be included in Gross Sales as per the Profit and Loss Accounts, as the same was on account of sale of Fixed Assets. 7.4.2 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of additional evidence brought on record by the appellant, I find that there remains no justification, whatsoever, for the addition of sum of Rs. 7,85,98,130/- towards difference in sales turnover. The disallowance made by AO on this account is not sustained." 6. With regard to trade payables, he has dealt with the issue at paras 7.5 to 7.5.3 which is reproduced below :- "7.5 Trade Payable This addition of Rs. 2.66 Crore has been made towards trade payable shown in the balance sheet, merely on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me were remanded back to JAO, along with other additional evidence. Further, in response to the notice under section 133(6) issued during the appellate proceedings, the said outstanding balance has been confirmed by M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd, along with relevant supporting evidence viz. ledger account, audited financial statements, ITR acknowledgment etc. On the given facts, I am inclined to concur with the explanation furnished by the appellant that the only addition in the Trade Payable account during the year, was on account of one party namely M/s Amtek Powertrain Ltd., towards regrouping of its outstanding balance of Rs. 1.29 Crore from other liabilities to Trade Payables; and the said party has independently confirmed the balance amount. 7.5.3 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of additional evidence brought on record by the appellant, and also in the light of further enquiries made, I find that there remains no justification, whatsoever, for the addition of sum of Rs. 2,66,28,234/- towards trade payable. Apart from the opening balance of Rs. 1,38,74,360/-, the only addition in Trade Payable account during the year was outstanding balance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merly Amtek Auto Ltd .) amounting Rs. 86,03,49,120/-, (ii) M/s Revent Metalcast Limited (Formerly Castex Technolgies Ltd.), amounting Rs. 7,55,74,536/- (iii) M/s OCL Iron & Steel Limited amounting Rs. 3,40,12,324/-(iv) M/s Gateway Impex Pvt Ltd. amounting Rs. 8,61,010/-, (v)M/s Satellite Forgings Pvt Ltd. amounting Rs. 43,360/-, and (vi)M/s WLD Investments Pvt. Ltd. amounting Rs. 38,000/-. In support, the appellant has submitted copy of account confirmation along with ITR acknowledgment of all the major parties i.e. Amtek Auto Limited, Castex Technologies Ltd., OCL Iron & Steel Ltd., and Gateway Impex Pvt. Ltd., as additional evidence. 7.6.1 The aforesaid details of Current Liabilities and supporting additional evidence was forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O.) for comments on admissibility thereof, and on merits as well, after causing necessary enquiries under the Act. The matter was followed up by way of reminders on various dates. However, no report has been received from JAO till date despite various reminders. Therefore, the said additional evidence has been admitted under Rule 46A for adjudication on merits, for reasons discussed at Para 4.2 abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance), as on 31.03.2021; whereas OCL Iron & Steel Ltd. (Kherani) had closing balance of Rs. 2.25 Crore (debit balance). Thus, the net balance of the said party was Rs. 3.40 Crore (credit balance) as on 31.03.2021. The appellant has further clarified that in the succeeding year, the appellant company has offered income by way of liabilities written back, totaling to Rs. 4.80 Crore; which includes write back of liability of M/s OCL Iron & Steel Ltd. 7.6.4 Further, the appellant has furnished copy of Return of Income (ITR- 6), along with Computation of income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. It is noted there from that a sum of Rs. 2,32,009/- has been disallowed under section 36 and sum of Rs. 2,59,480/- has been disallowed under section 43B, in computation of income. Thus, the claim of the appellant that a sum of Rs. 4,91,489/- towards unpaid PF/ESI dues were already added back, stands verified from the computation of Income. 7.6.5 To sum up, the appellant has furnished detailed head wise break-up of Current liabilities, and substantiated the same by furnishing ledgers, in respect of Personnel Expenses and Other Expenses payable, and account confirmations along with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this regard. 7.7.1 The appellant has furnished copy of Return of Income (ITR-6), along with Computation of income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. It is noted there from (Schedule BP- Computation of Income from Business or Profession) that a sum of Rs. 71,71,27,694/- has been added back, being amounts debited to the Profit and Loss account, to the extent disallowable under section 37. On the given facts, I am inclined to concur with the explanation furnished by the appellant that the amounts debited as exceptional charges/expenses have already been covered by the suo-moto disallowance made by the appellant under section 37. It is evident that the exceptional charges/expenses were not required to be further disallowed by the AO, as the same tant amounts to double addition of the same amount. The disallowance made by AO on this account is not sustained." 9. After considering the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A), we observe that ld. CIT (A) has analysed the detailed submissions made by the assessee with regard to difference in sales turnover. Assessee has submitted copy of GST R-1 and sales invoices as additional evidences and after reconciling the same, ld. CIT (A) fo....