Rathi Pragati Steel Manufacturing Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 125/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 12520114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.125/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 RATHI PRAGATI STEEL MANUFACTURING LTD., VS. ADDL. C IT, C-4/127, SAFDARJUNG DEVELOPMENT AREA, RANGE-15, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AADCR6902J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. DR ORDER PER C.L. SETHI, J.M. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), FOR THE A.Y. 2 006-07. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E. NONE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED TH E LD. CIT(A)S ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT DESPITE SEVERAL O PPORTUNITIES ITA NO. 125/D/2011 2 OF BEING HEARD PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AS SESSEE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AN D AS SUCH THE LD. CIT(A) WAS VERY MUCH JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE ANY SUBMISSION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME ON 28.11.2006 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 14,94,534/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE A ND EXAMINING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DETERMINING THE BUSINESS LOSS AT RS. 1,07,280/-. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 13,87,254/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE AP PEAL FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AS DISCUSSED BY HIM IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER. ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE REPE ATEDLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS AND THE CASE WAS ULTIMATELY ADJ OURNED TO 25.10.2010, WHEN NO ONE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD APP EARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON WAS FILED NOR ANY SUBMISSION WAS FILED. THE LD. CIT(A) , THEREFORE, ITA NO. 125/D/2011 3 TAKEN A VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PU RSUING THE APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO DIS POSED OFF THE APPEAL AS PER MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. T HEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL HAS FIELD AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,87,254/- IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 13,87,254/- IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,87,254/- MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON OR BASIS FOR NOT INTERFERING WITH THE AO S ORDER. THE VARIOUS FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT BEEN DELIBERATED UPON BY LD. C IT(A) BEFORE COMING TO A VIEW THAT HE HAD NO REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE AOS ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) IS NONE SPEAKING AND UNREASONED ORDER. THOU GH THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL EX -PARTE SINCE ITA NO. 125/D/2011 4 ASSESSEE WAS NOT COOPERATING WITH HIM AND SOUGHT SE VERAL ADJOURNMENTS TIMES AND AGAIN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FA ILED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE FACTS RELA TING THERETO. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUB MITTED THAT NONE APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ON 25.10.2010 WAS BEYOND THE ASSESSEES CONTROL IN AS MUCH AS ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AT LAL KUAN, GHAZIABAD WITH THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SHRI R. K. VERMA WHILE HE WAS GOING TO ATTEND THE HEARING BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE, WE A RE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LET THIS APP EAL BE FRESHLY DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER PASSING A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED A DETAILED SUBMISS ION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 29.7.2010, WHICH HAS NOT B EEN TAKEN INTO AN ACCOUNT BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING TH E APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECID E THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES DETAILED SU BMISSION ALLEGEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.7.10 BEFORE H IM. THE LD. ITA NO. 125/D/2011 5 CIT(A) SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ITS SAY IN RESPECT OF ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENTS ON FLIMSY GROUNDS AND SHALL CO-OPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL AT THE EARLIEST AND SHALL SUBMIT ALL THE DETAILS/SUBMISSIONS AT THE FIRST AVA ILABLE OPPORTUNITY. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR A STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER ON 5.9.2011 . SD/- SD/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (C.L. SETHI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5.9.11 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR