2021 (9) TMI 64 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of sundry creditors - as argued no opportunity was given to the assessee to put forth their case or to furnish the relevant material before making this addition - HELD THAT - When the assessee itself could produce the confirmation letters in respect of two other parties, and the assessee could have produced such confirmation in respect of the other party also before the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the opinion that there would not have been any difficulty for the assessee to produce such confirmation before the learned Assessing Officer himself. We, therefore, believe that assessee could not produce such a letter before Assessing Officer because he was not put on notice of this fact, with reasonable time at their disposal, before passing of the assessment order. On noting this fact, we hold that sufficient opportunity was not rendered to the assessee before making addition in respect of M/s Ambient Prenters Private Limited. Keeping in view the fact that the business activity of the assessee is not in dispute and the sundry creditors are not generally in disputed, and further in view of the smallness of addition, we do not find any justification to remand issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. Inasmuch as there is no adverse comment by the Ld. CIT(A) on the confirmation letter, we accept the contention of the assessee and direct the assessing officer to delete the addition impugned in this appeal.

Issues:
1. Opportunity to present case and furnish material before making addition of sundry creditors.
2. Non-appearance of assessee during proceedings.
3. Failure to produce confirmation in respect of a specific party.
4. Adequacy of opportunity provided to assessee.
5. Justification for addition of sundry creditors.
6. Proper exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT(A).
7. Decision on remanding issue back to the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of sundry creditors. The assessee contended that they were not given an opportunity to present their case and furnish relevant material before the addition was made. The CIT(A) refused to delete the addition, stating that though the relevant records were furnished, they were not examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee challenged this decision in the appeal.

2. During the proceedings, neither the assessee nor their authorized representative appeared, indicating non-service of notice. The Tribunal noted that the notice was sent to the address provided by the assessee, and in the absence of any action taken by the assessee to ensure receipt of the notice, the non-service was attributed to the conduct of the assessee. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the Revenue and decide the issue based on the available records.

3. The issue arose from the failure of the assessee to produce confirmation in respect of a specific party, M/s Ambient Prenters Private Limited, despite producing confirmations from other parties. The Tribunal observed that the letter addressed to M/s Ambient Prenters Private Limited was returned due to an incomplete address, a fact not known to the Assessing Officer when issuing the show cause notice. This lack of sufficient opportunity for the assessee to clarify the issue was highlighted.

4. The Tribunal found that the assessee could have produced the confirmation letter for M/s Ambient Prenters Private Limited before the Assessing Officer had they been informed in time. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to address the issue, leading to the conclusion that sufficient opportunity was not rendered to the assessee before making the addition.

5. The Revenue justified the addition of sundry creditors based on the failure of the assessee to provide confirmation for M/s Ambient Prenters Private Limited. However, the Tribunal held that the assessing officer did not have sufficient time to obtain the confirmation letter from the assessee, and the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the letter without proper examination.

6. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A) for not exercising proper jurisdiction by rejecting the confirmation letter without examining it or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessing officer accepted confirmations from two parties but proceeded to make the addition without affording the assessee a fair opportunity.

7. Considering the business activity of the assessee, the non-disputed nature of sundry creditors, and the smallness of the addition, the Tribunal found no justification to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and directed the assessing officer to delete the addition in question, ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee.

← Previous Next →