Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly V. M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Pilibhit

ITA 161/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 16123714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHYAM LAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.160, 161 & 162/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S KISAN SEHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. PURANPUR, BISALPUR, DISTT. PILIBHIT 262 001 PAN A A CCK 3995 M VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR APPELLANT BY SHRI SHYAM LAL, CA RESPONDENT BY 20 / 10 /2015 DATE OF HEARING 04/11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. 1. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON COMMON GROUNDS EXCEPT THE DIFF ERENCE IN QUANTUM. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE WE REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS: ITA NO. 160/LKW/2014 (AY 2006-07) 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ). BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTI ON AND SALE OF BAGGASE AT RS.64,32,270/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. THE C1T (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED. 2 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK OF SU GAR AND EXCISE DUTY AT RS.2,38,91,246/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROD UCE STOCK REGISTER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EPF/GIS CONTRIBUTIO N FROM EMPLOYEES AT RS.2,94,694/-BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION IN YIELD OF SUGAR AT RS.2,38,91,075/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROD UCE ANY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. ITA NO. 161/LKW/2014 (AY 2007-08) 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X OF APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OFI ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PRO DUCTION OF BAGGASSE AT RS.62,15,510/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUC E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. THE CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSIN G STOCK AT RS. 98,95,280/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF REPRESENTING EXCISE DUTY IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AT RS. 6,43,193/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. 3 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE TAX AT RS.53, 781/- AND ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRY TAX AT RS.2,111/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID PURCHASE TAX AT RS. 48,30,102/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 162/LKW/2014 (AY 2008-09) 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE VALUE OF BAGGA SSE AT RS.2,62,34,837/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT (A) HAS N OT APPRECIATED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 23.12 .2010. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION OF YIELD OF SUGAR AT RS. 3,53,74,719/-/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODU CE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. THE CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 23.12.2010. (3) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX ( APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY RESTORED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. DR HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS RAI SED BEFORE HIM IN THESE APPEALS BY PASSING A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER. H E HAS SIMPLY REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN FEW WORDS HE DISPOSED OF THE GROUNDS AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 4 BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERIT BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER. L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THESE FACTS. HOWEVER, HE AGREED DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT LET THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR READJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERIT. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE LIGHT OF GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORDER AND FEW LIN ES HE DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, WITHOUT DEALING THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND DISCUSSING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AN D WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THESE APPEALS ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER ON ALL ISSUES. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:04 /11/2015 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASST T. REGISTRAR