Case Law Details
Sitaram Fruits Co. Vs Assessment Unit (ITAT Cuttack)
In the case of Sitaram Fruits Co. vs. the Assessment Unit, the ITAT Cuttack has remanded the assessment back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh review. This decision follows an appeal against the CIT(A) order dated April 12, 2024. The appellant, engaged in wholesale and retail fruit trading, argued that notices from the AO were not received and that cash payments for salaries and wages were disputed. The ITAT noted that while the appellant failed to provide necessary details during the assessment, there was a failure in notice receipt, which impacted the case. The ITAT directed that the case be reassessed, allowing the appellant to present their claims again. The AO was also instructed to potentially send physical notices if required. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the ITAT emphasizing the need for fair adjudication and granting the appellant another opportunity to substantiate their case.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CUTTACK
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.04.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in I. T. Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064068913(1), for the assessment year 2020-2021.
2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is engaged in the business of Whole Sale and Retail Trading of fruits at Church Road, Berhampur, Ganjam. It was the submission that the assessee obtained fruits from various growers, sells the fruits on behalf of the growers and then pays the growers after taking commission. It was the submission that the return had also been filed by the assessee along with the report under Section 44AB of the Act. It was the submission that there has been some failure in providing details in the course of assessment. It was the submission that the various notices issued by the AO had not been received by the assessee. It was the submission that the issues may be restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication and the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings.
3. In reply, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. In regard to the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee, during the course of hearing, ld. AR was asked to provide the email address of the assessee to which notices have to be sent. In this regard, ld. AR drew our attention to Form 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the email address of the assessee is mentioned as [email protected]. It was the further submission that the main dispute is in regard to the salary and wages paid. It was the submission that as the assessee has to get the product sold. The assessee was paying the salary and wages in cash. It was the submission that the AO had not accepted these facts. This claim of the assessee is also to be considered by the AO when completing the readjudication of assessment afresh. This being so, in the interest of justice and to grant the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate his case, the issues in this appeal are restored back to the file of ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the AO could also send physical notice to the assessee in the event that the assessee is not cooperating in the set aside proceedings. Should the assessee not cooperate in the set aside proceedings, liberty is granted to the AO to take adverse views.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 01/08/2024.
Author Bio
