Iapl/15/2021 Of Sangam Structurals Limited v. Income Tax Officer

Court No. - 3Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 15 of 2021Appellant :- Sangam Structurals LimitedRespondent :- Income Tax OfficerCounsel for Appellant :- Pranjal ShuklaCounsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated21.12.2017 in Income Tax Appeal No.53/Alld./2015 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The present appeal is being entertained on the following question oflaw: "Whether the Tribunal could have set aside the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and upheld the order of the Assessing Authority withoutrecording any cogent finding as to the genuineness of the credit entriesclaimed by the assessee?" 3. Having heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the assesseeand Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue, we find thatthough the assessing authority had rejected the claim made by theassessee, the CIT (Appeals) allowed additional evidence to be led andreached conclusion in favour of the assessee. 4. Upon revenue's appeal, the Tribunal has recorded finding that the CIT(Appeals) had not examined the credit worthiness of the lender and hadblindly accepted the contention made by the assessee. Second, it hasbeen found that the finding of the Assessing Officer in that regard havenot been examined by the CIT (Appeals). Thus, it has been concludedthat the assessee had failed to prove the credit worthiness before the"lower authorities". Also, the Tribunal has failed to follow the orderpassed in the case of assessee in the earlier assessment year on thereasoning that in the context of the Act, each assessment order is aseparate unit and the principle of res-judicata does not apply. On suchfinding a conclusion has been reached by the Tribunal that the assessee 5. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal - to not follow the earlier decisionis concerned, we do not see any error in the same as no fact or findinghas been shown to exist in the earlier assessment order as may havebeen common to the present assessment year. 6. However, insofar as the other findings are concerned, plainly they maynot reach the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the assessee hadfailed to discharge it's burden under Section 68 of the Act. The fact thatthe Assessing Officer had recorded certain finding or the CIT (Appeals)failed to consider the same or the further fact that the CIT (Appeals) didnot record cogent finding on the additional evidence led by the assesseemay all be correct yet, the same would only be enough to pass an orderof remand but not an order to set aside the appeal order, in entirety, or touphold the assessment order. 7. To uphold the assessment order, the Tribunal ought to have recordedit's independent findings on the merits of the case after consideration ofthe evidence that was existing on record. That having not been done, theorder passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is accordinglyset aside. 8. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the matter is remittedto the CIT (Appeals) to decide the assessee's appeal afresh in light ofthe observations noted above. That exercise may be completed, asexpeditiously as possible, without allowing for any undue or longadjournment. 9. The question of law as framed above is answered in negative i.e. infavour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.