ACIT, Varanasi V. M/s pee woolen Mills, Bhadohi

ITA 180/ALLD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 18020714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJKUMAR LACHHIRAMKA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT DHAWAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER ITA NO. 180 TO 183/ALLD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 TO 2008-09 A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE, VS. M/S. PEE WOOLEN MI LLS, VARANASI. MAIN ROAD, BHADOHI. PAN: AAGFP 9010R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJKUMAR LACHHIRAMKA, CIT/DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJIT DHAWAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.05.2014 ORDER PER BENCH: ALL THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), VARANASI DATED 16.06.2011 FOR THE ABOVE ASS ESSMENT YEARS. 2. THE REVENUE IN ALL THE APPEALS CHALLENGED THE DE LETION OF ADDITION OF RS.14,07,013/-, RS.38,49,968/-, RS.34,83,549/- AND RS.31,55,372/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA PROFIT BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. CARPET INTERNATIONAL, ITA NO. 180 TO 183/ALLD/2011 2 CARPET INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., BHADOHI AND ITS DIR ECTORS, PARTNERS, ITS SISTER CONCERNS AND OTHER GROUP CASES ON 11.02.2009. THE A SSESSMENTS PERTAINED U/S. 153A/143(3) AND THE AO FINDING DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND NON- AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND APPLIED PROFIT RATE OF 8% FOR THE PURPO SE OF MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA PROFIT AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ALL THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED A LL THESE ADDITIONS BY PASSING NON-SPEAKING ORDER. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR IN ALL THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, TH E FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE RE PRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE A.O. AFTER HAV ING EXAMINED THE RECORDS AND DETAILED ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPE LLANT AND SUPPORT OF THE FACTUAL DETAILS FROM THE RECORDS AS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND PRODUCED BEFORE ME. THE SAME ON VERIFICATION AR E FUND TO BE IN ORDER. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO HESITATION THAT THE ACT ION OF THE A.O. CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS IT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. THUS, THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY MERE E STIMATION OF N,P. AT 8% ON DISCLOSED TURNOVER IS HEREBY DELETED. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.14,07,013/-. 4. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT P RODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EVEN NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND FURTHER INFIRMITIES WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION AND IN CASE HE WAS SATISFIED WITH ITA NO. 180 TO 183/ALLD/2011 3 THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HE SHOULD HAVE PASS ED REASONED ORDER BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED UN- REASONED ORDER. THEREFORE, THE MATTER REQUIRES RECO NSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE RATIO OF THE EXPENSES AS PER TH E ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WAS ABNORMAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED ABOVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. THE AO HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC REASONS FOR MAK ING THE ADDITIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED TO BY THE LD . CIT(A) IN HIS FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. ACCORDING TO SECT ION 250(6), THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELL ATE ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. MAY BE THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN AN Y REASONS IN HIS FINDINGS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDE RS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE IT ACT. THE IMPU GNED ORDERS, THUS, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW AND THE MATTER IN ISSUE REQUIRES R ECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF LD. ITA NO. 180 TO 183/ALLD/2011 4 CIT(A) FOR PASSING THE REASONED ORDER. WE ACCORDING LY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE APPEALS TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD . CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE ASSTT. REGISTRAR TRUE COPY