M/s. Double Barrel Jeans India P.Ltd., Hoshiarpur V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Hoshiarpur

ITA 113/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63539 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL MANCHANDA
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.113(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AABCD0605R M/S. DOUBLE BARREL JEANS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CO MMR. OF INCOME-TAX, MAHILPUR, HOSHIARPUR. HOSHIARPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. RAHUL MANCHANDA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING:16/10/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:16/10/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED `13.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 HAVE BEEN R IGHTLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ARE ILLEGAL AND BE DELETED. ITA NO.113(ASR)/2012 2 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT DISPU TED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE BENCH POINTED OUT TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON- COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THIS CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEF ORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES AND HE REQUESTED THAT IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE UNDER THE LAW. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. ITA NO.113(ASR)/2012 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS STATE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY AND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS WRONGLY BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE NOT COMMENTING UPON THE MERIT OF T HE CASE BECAUSE IT WILL BE PREJUDICE TO THE MIND OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. THUS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY IS NON-SPEAKING IN WHICH THE LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SMALL PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING P AGES 1 TO 36 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE, AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD, ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF MR. MOHINDER SINGH JASWAL; ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, ORDER OF CIT(A), COMPUTATION OF INCOME , ORDER OF AO AND DEC ISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD. 216 CTR 195. AFTER PERUSING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AP PRECIATION OF EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED THOROUGH EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE A O. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET AS IDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING ITA NO.113(ASR)/2012 4 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16TH OCTOBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. DOUBLE BARREL JEANS INDIA PVT. L TD. HOSHIARPUR. 2. THE DY.CIT, HOSHIARPUR. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.