M/s. Shakshi Synthetics Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-2, Surat

ITA 1832/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2120 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KEDIA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH , , , , , , , , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ # #$ # #$ # #$ # % % % % BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AN D ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1832/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] SHAKSHI SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. C/O.SUNIL KEDIA AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE 210-B, 21 ST CENTURY BUSINESS CENTRE NR.UDHAN DARAJA RING ROAD, SURAT 395 002. PAN : AADCS 3464 Q /VS. ACIT, CIR.2 SURAT. ( (( ('( '( '( '( / APPELLANT) ( (( ()*'( )*'( )*'( )*'( / RESPONDENT) + , - #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL KEDIA / , - #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. SINGH, SR.DR 0 , '$/ DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND MAY, 2013 123 , '$/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 TH MAY, 2013 #4 / O R D E R PER MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARISING FROM THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A)- IV, SURAT DATED 9.3.2010. ITA NO.1832/AHD/2010 -2- 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NARRATIVE AS WELL AS ARE ARGUMENTA TIVE, THEREFORE, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ITAT RULES. IN THIS REG ARD, THE LEARNED AR HAS INFORMED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS ARE, I N FACT, IN RESPECT OF TWO ADDITIONS VIZ. (I) ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES OF RS.3,62,241/-, AND (II) D ISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SALES-TAX OF RS.55,001/-. 3. IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE GROUNDS, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED, WHEN IT WAS ABOUT TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 29.12.2009. THE LEARNED AR HAS IN FORMED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN HURRIED MANNER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES, AS ALSO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASS ESSEE. BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN A HURRIED MANNER, THEREF ORE, THE AO HAD WRONGLY MENTIONED THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE OF RS.19,11,555/-. THE CORRECT FIGURE AS PER THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WAS RS.13,93,950/-. IN SUPPORT, THE LEARNED AR HAS PLACED A COPY OF THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. RATHER, W E HAVE NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES, THE SAID AMOU NT REPRESENTED THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDING ON 31- 3-2007. IT HAS ALSO BEEN VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED BEFO RE US THAT THE PURCHASES WERE VERIFIABLE. MERELY BECAUSE OF NON-F URNISHING OF CONTRA-CONFIRMATIONS, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MAD E, THAT TOO ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 25% OF TH E PURCHASES BEING NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE. ITA NO.1832/AHD/2010 -3- 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY PASSING A CRYPTIC ORDER, WHEREIN THE REASONS GIVEN WAS THAT T HE EVIDENCES NOW PLACED AT THE STAGE OF THE APPEAL WERE NOT FILE D BEFORE THE AO, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED THE REA SON AS TO WHY THOSE EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN FILED DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. RATHER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OPINED THAT IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A O HAD REFUSED TO ACCEPT THOSE EVIDENCES OR THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENT ED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO PRODUCE THEM DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO US, THE CRUX OF THESE FI NDINGS IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCARDED ALL THOSE EVIDENCE S WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS ALSO, THE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCES. IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING OF LAW, RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES EMPOWERS THE LEARNED CI T(A) TO ACCEPT ANY ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, ALTHOUGH NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT OR THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT C AUSE. BUT THE POWERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE NOT LIMITED, BUT E XPLAINED VIDE SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A, THAT AN EVIDENCE PRODUCED CAN BE ENTERTAINED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE AO IS ALSO TO BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THAT EVIDENCES, MEANING THEREBY, UNLESS THE AO HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, SUCH AN EVID ENCE MUST NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDING TO U S, IT WAS EXPECTED FROM THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS CASE TO EX ERCISE THE POWER OF ENTERTAINING ALL THESE EVIDENCES, AS ENSHR INED IN RULE ITA NO.1832/AHD/2010 -4- 46A OF THE I.T.RULES, WHICH WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFOR E THE AO DUE TO INSUFFICIENCY OF TIME. RATHER, AT THIS SECOND S TAGE OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT IS TRYING TO PLACE CERTAIN EV IDENCES. BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTO RE BOTH THE ISSUES I.E. THE QUESTION OF VERIFICATION OF PURCHASES AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALES-TAX PAYMENTS TO BE RESTORED, BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION. WE HEREBY ALSO INSTRUCT THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUO MOTTO , WITHIN 30 DAYS ON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL, WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE OF HEARING, SO THAT BOTH THE ISSUES, WHICH ACCORDING TO US ARE TRIVIAL IN NATURE, SHALL BE DEC IDED AT AN EARLY DATE. OTHERWISE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS FULLY EMPOW ERED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER LAW. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEI NG REMITTED BACK, HENCE ALLOWED ONLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( !' !' !' !' / ANIL CHATURVEDI) #$ #$ #$ #$ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( /MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) /JUDICIAL MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD