M/s Krishan Chand Agro Pvt. Ltd., Sunam V. Addl. CIT, Range, Sangrur

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5185 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1090/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S KRISHAN CHAND AGRO PVT. LTD. VS. THE ADDL. CIT JAWANDHA ROAD, SUNAM RANGE, SANGRUR PAN NO. AABCK7035K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 05/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/03/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PATIALA DT. 05/04/2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE PURCHASES OF RICE BRAN AND RICE BRAN OIL AS BUGUS. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRINGING TO CHARGE THE PEAK CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PARTIES FROM WHOM RICE BRAN AND RICE BRAN OIL WERE PURCHASED THOUGH T HE PAYMENTS TO ALL THE PARTIES WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. 5. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1,75,43,181/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED OVER STATEMENT OF COST OF RICE B RAN AND RICE ) BRAN OIL. 6. THAT THE ID A.O IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE E STIMATION OF YIELD AT 14.5% AS AGAINST 12.65% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR REFERENCE OF ANY 2 COMPARABLE CASE AND IGNORING THE PAST HISTORY OF TH E CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE' NOT CONSIDERING REASONABLENESS THEREOF. 7. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING T HE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VAT ALTHOUGH THE SAME WAS DULY PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON PURCHASES MADE. 8. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING T HE ORDER OF THE ID. A.O IN RESTRICTING THE ALLOWANCE OF SALARY PAID TO MEHAK SINGLA TO RS. 15,000/- PER MONTH AGAINST RS. 30,000/- ACTUALLY PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . THE HEARINGS A S PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW WERE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT: 07.11.2016 18.11.2016 NONE ATTENDED 30.11.2016 09.12.2016 SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT 16.12.2016 29.12.2016 NONE ATTENDED 01.02.2017 02.03.2017 NONE ATTENDED 08.03.2017 21.03.2017 NONE ATTENDED ALL HEARING NOTICES WERE SENT TO HIM ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE FORM NO. 35. IN RESPONSE TO MOST OF THE NOTICES COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE DIDN'T APPEAR NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN ARGUMENT AND IN RESPONSE TO OTHER THE NOTICES HE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS. THUS, NO SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE EVER FILED. THIS LEAD TO THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS B EST KNOWN TO HIM. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT DISPOSED OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF MA TERIAL ON RECORD. 4. BEFORE US, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. 5. THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TOLLARAM HASSOMAL ( 2006) 153 TAXMAN 532 (M.P.) DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING/ ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 15.04.2014 08.05.2014 NONE ATTENDED 16.07.2014 28.07.2014 NONE ATTENDED 22.08.2014 08.09.2014 SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT 19.11.2014 SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT 09.12.2014 23.12.2014 NONE ATTENDED 31.12.2015 11.01.2016 NONE ATTENDED 12.01.2016 25.01.2016 NONE ATTENDED 08.02.2016 29.02.2016 SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT 09.03.2016 NONE ATTENDED 16.05.2016 08.06.2016 NONE ATTENDED 13.07.2016 20.07.2016 NONE ATTENDED 02.08.2016 10.08.2016 NONE ATTENDED 16.08.2016 29.08.2016 NONE ATTENDED 04.10.2016 17.10.2016 NONE ATTENDED 20.10.2016 04.11.2016 NONE ATTENDED 3 6. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED EX PARTE BY THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NO T AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE AFTER ACCORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. 7. THE DEFIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED IS VIEWED SER IOUSLY, HOWEVER THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT B ELAY THE CONFIDENCE REPOSED UPON AND WILL NOT ABUSE THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN WHILE SUBMITTING COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 05/03/2018 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR