Global Minetec Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1224/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4064 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH C DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI K. D. RA NJAN, AM I. T. A. NO. 1224 (DEL) OF 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. M/S. GLOBAL MINETEC LIMITED, D Y. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 153, BASANT ENCLAVE, VS. C I R C L E : 12 (1), RAO TULA RAM MARG, N E W D E L H I. N E W D E L H I 110 057. PAN / GIR NO. AABCG 3859M. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, A. R.; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. MONA MOHANTY, SR. D. R. O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XIV, NEW DELHI. THE LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS REJECTED HAVING REGARD TO TH E ISSUE INVOLVED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON MERITS 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. ACTION OF CIT (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF THE AO IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF I. T. ACT WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL, ARBI TRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; 2 I. T. A. NO. 1224 (DEL) OF 2011 2. ACTION OF CIT (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE AD-HOC ADDITION OF RS.13,96,915/- ON ACCOUNT OF 2 PER CENT EXPENSES IN CURRED ON SPARE PARTS & TYRE, CONSUMED AND REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SAME IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL, ARBI TRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO CONF IRMING THE AD-HOC ADDITION OF RS.13,96,950/-, BEING TWO PER CENT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON SPARE PARTS, TYRES CONSUMED AND REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATE D IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF MINING OF COAL AT MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. AND SINGRENI COAL FIELDS LTD. AND FOR C ARRYING OUT THE MINING ACTIVITIES, HEAVY EARTH MOVING MACHINERIES AND OTHER MINING MACHINES ARE US ED. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES ON REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE MACHINERY. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED WERE SUPPORTED BY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS, WHIC H WERE NOT AMENABLE TO SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION. HE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED TWO PER CENT OF THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INFLATED THE EX PENSES. 4. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE DISAL LOWANCE AS NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE HIM DESPITE THE FACT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) PROVIDED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD. HE OBSERVED THAT FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE I T WAS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HE, AC CORDINGLY, UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT IS EVIDE NT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE COMPLIANCES OF VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE WAS EITHER SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS OR WAS NOT RESPONDING AT ALL TO THE NOTICES ISSUED. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE ON AD-HOC BASIS WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE DEFECTS OR DISCREPANCIES IN THE VOUCHERS MAINTAINED AND THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWAN CE IN THE ABSENCE OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, FOR MEETI NG THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE 3 I. T. A. NO. 1224 (DEL) OF 2011 MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTIONS THAT HE WILL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH MAY, 2011 AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- [ I. P. BANSAL ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 09 TH MAY, 2011. * MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT.