DCIT, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad V. M/s. Sunder Silk Mills P. Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 1190/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66453 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SATAATJU
• Assessee Lawyers: B SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1189/HYD/2012 AY 2004-05 ITA NO. 1190/HYD/2012 AY 2007-08 ITA NO. 1191/HYD/2012 AY 2008-09 DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 HYDERABAD VS. M/S. SUNDER SILK MILLS P. LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AACCS9005J APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI A.K. SATA[ATJU RESPONDENT BY: SRI B. SAI PRASAD DATE OF HEARING: 1 4 . 11 .2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 4 . 11 .2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD DATED 25. 5.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. SIN CE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS COMMON IN NATURE, ALL TH E ABOVE THREE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS NARRATED BY THE CIT(A), ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PASSED BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, HYDERABAD, DATED 31.12.2010. BY WAY OF THE SAID ORDERS, THE TOTAL INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ASSESSED AT RS. 80,56,751, RS. 1,01,85,349 AND RS. 85,44,315 FOR A. YS. 2004-05, 2007-08 AND 2008-09, RESPECTIVELY, AS AGAINST THE I NCOMES RETURNED OF RS. 2,39,440, RS. 4,96,080 AND RS. 6,80 ,300 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, RESPECTIVELY. ON APPEAL, T HE CIT(A) CALLED FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NOS. 1189-1191/HYD/2012 M/S. SUNDER SILK MILLS P. LTD. ======================== 2 THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELETION OF ADDIT IONS MADE BY THE CIT(A) ACCEPTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO COMMENT ON THE SAME, IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE DR PRAYED THE BENCH TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 4. THE LEARNED AR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ARGUMENT OF THE DR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CIT(A) ERR ED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT OBSERVING RUL E 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 IS TOTALLY WRONG AND FALLACI OUS. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 A NOR THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL ENTERTAINING ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE. UNDER SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT THE CIT(A) HAS THE POWER TO DIRECT ENQUIRY AND CALL FOR EVIDENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. IF THE CI T(A) EXERCISES HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4) TO CALL FOR EVIDENCE; AN D WHEN THE MATERIAL CALLED UPON BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS PRODUCED AND IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE CIT(A) IS ENTITLED TO D ISPOSE OF THE CASE ON MERIT TAKING THOSE MATERIAL INTO ACCOUNT. HOWEV ER, IF THE CIT(A) ACTS ON AN APPLICATION MADE UNDER SECTION 46A, OPPO RTUNITY AS PER RULE 46A(3) IS MANDATORY. IN THIS CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND AT THE INSTANCE OF THE CIT(A ) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF THE AUDIT REPORTS OBTAINED U/S 44AB IN PROOF OF TRADE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SUPPLIERS OF GOODS AND SHOWING THE AMOUNT DUE TO THEM. THUS THE CIT(A) DID THE REQUIR ED VERIFICATION WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE DONE; AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS REALISING THAT THE SAME WERE MADE IN A CA SUAL MANNER. AS SUCH THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT OF RULE 46A AS CLA IMED BY THE REVENUE. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE EN TIRE MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CIT(A) AFTER TAKING THE SAME INTO ITA NOS. 1189-1191/HYD/2012 M/S. SUNDER SILK MILLS P. LTD. ======================== 3 ACCOUNT HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT OF RULE 46A OF THE I. T. RULES SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEITHER MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER THE SAI D RULE NOR THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL ENTERTAINING THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THESE CASES, ADDITION WAS D ELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS EXAMINATION. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS APPRO PRIATE TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SE PARTICULARS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND DECIDE THEREUPON. A CCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, 8 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, L.B. STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD-500 004. 2. M/S. SUNDER SILK MILLS P. LTD., 21 - 2 - 10, PATHERGATTI, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - VII, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO