IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2018-19

M/s. HIPE Infrastructure Projects LLP, 54, Rockline Centre, Richmond Road, Bangalore - 560 025. PAN :AAGFH 0472 B	Vs.	ACIT, Circle - 7(1)(1) Bangalore.
APPELLANT		RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri.Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.

Date of hearing : 25.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025

ORDER

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :

This appeal filed by the assesseeisagainst the Order passed by the CIT(A)

vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064855009(1) dated

14.05.2024, on the following grounds of appeal:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred as "CIT (A)" for brevity) has erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him and the order therefore is bad in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order before the expiry of time granted for submission of details.

3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in passing the order without granting for the personal hearing via video conferencing to explain further, specifically requested by the appellant.

GROUNDS RELATING TO ADDING A SUM OF Rs.7,69,56,639 UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,69,56,639 under section 68 of the Act. The section provides for treating any sum found credited in the books of an assessee as income, if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the same or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of A.O.

5. The learned CIT(A) and AO erred in not appreciating the explanation and documents produced before them. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the said amount was brought in by a Partner of the LLP. Partner is an assessee in the very same Circle.

GROUNDS RELATING TO DISALLOWING A SUM OF Rs.1,15,00,000 UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,15,00,000 under section 69 of the Act. The appellant had granted project advances over a period of time during earlier years. The appellant had made a provision for doubtful debts in its books. The said provision was added back to income in the computation of income. Thus the amount was already offered to tax. Yet the CIT(A) invoked section 69 and brought the amount of Rs 1,15.00,000 as income and taxed the same.

Section 69 has no applicability at all.

7. The learnedCIT(A) and AO erred in not appreciating the explanation and documents produced before them.

GROUNDS RELATING TO ADDING A SUM OF Rs.8,85,00,000 UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT

8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition ofRs.8,85,00,000 under section 69 of the Act.

9. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that this amount represents advances paid to 4 entitles through banking channels. Bank statements submitted have not been considered. It is apparent that funds were brought n by its Partner. This fact is admitted in the assessment order itself.

10. The learned CIT(A) and AO erred in not appreciating the explanation and documents produced before them. Such as confirmation from the parties and the bank transactions.

11. The appellant further prays that a stay of collection of demand be granted till the disposal of appeal. The appellant is facings sevier financial difficulties and is not capable of making a payment of such a large sum as tax based on a deemed income which was never received by the appellant.

12. The appellant submits that each of the above grounds or sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.

13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal, so as to enable the income tax appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal according to law.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document