Concrete Products & Construction Co, CHENNAI V. JCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1390/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8123 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1390/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S CONCRETE PRODUCTS & CONSTRUCTION CO. NO.766, POONAMALLE HIGH ROAD KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010 VS. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE XIII CHENNAI [PAN AAAFC 0393 G ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 07 - 12 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 - 02 - 201 6 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-12, CHENNA I, DATED 16.3.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. SHRI S SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLO WANCE OF ` 9,72,673/- BEING THE UNPAID EXCISE DUTY. REFERRING TO THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DE DUCTION OF ITA NO. 1390/15 :- 2 -: ` 37,32,176/- FROM THE NET PROFIT SINCE THE SAME WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR BY WAY OF ADDITION TO CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF ` 27,38,126/- BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. ANOTHER SUM OF ` 21,377/- HAS BEEN PAID SUBSEQUENTLY. THE BALANCE OF ` 9,72,673/- REPRESENTS THE EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE ON THE DISPUTED STOCK ITEMS WHI CH WERE NOT SUPPLIED TILL OCTOBER 2006. ACCORDING TO THE LD. C OUNSEL, THE EXCISE DUTY IS PAYABLE WHEN THE GOODS ARE REMOVED FROM THE FACTORY. SINCE THE GOODS ARE NOT REMOVED FROM THE FACTORY, IT CANN OT BE TAKEN FOR COMPUTING THE CLOSING STOCK. ADDITION OF ` 9,72,673/-, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT, THEREFORE, IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES REPRE SENTATIVES CONCEDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWA NCE OF ` 9,72,673/-, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH HOW THE ADMISSI ON WAS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THERE IS NO REFER ENCE IN THE LETTER DATED 13.12.2006 WHICH WAS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RE WAS ADMISSION BY THE REPRESENTATIVE, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RI GHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ON A FURTHER QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHE R ` 9,72,673/- ITA NO. 1390/15 :- 3 -: WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION, THE LD. DR CLARIFIED THAT THIS IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE MATTER M AY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIF ICATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, A SUM OF ` 9,72,673/- REPRESENTS THE EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE ON TH E MANUFACTURED GOODS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THIS SUM OF ` 9,72,673/- WAS NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE IN COME. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR, THIS IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. SINCE AN ADMISSION WAS SAID TO BE MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOT EMANATING FROM THE L ETTER DATED 13.12.2006, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. SINC E THE CLAIM OF ` 9,72,673/- WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMP UTING THE TOTAL INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TH E BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF ` 9,72,673/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL VERIFY THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ` 9,72,673/- OR NOT. ITA NO. 1390/15 :- 4 -: THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF