LAUREL WIRES LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1859/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4548 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S JADHAVDR
• Assessee Lawyers: P V DESAI

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.1859/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S LAUREL WIRES LTD. C-203, CRYSTAL PLAZA, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400053 / VS. THE ITO-8(2)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020 / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. AAACL5522F $ % & / ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.V. DESAI $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI V.S. JADHAV-DR / DATE OF HEARING 12/01/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 12/01/2016 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 16/04/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THE ONLY GROUND ARGUED PERTAINS TO SALES TAX LIABIL ITY OF RS.16,60,332/-, PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASES A ND THUS IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.1859/MUM/2015 M/S LAUREL WIRES LTD. 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, SHRI P. V. DESAI , CONTENDED THAT THE SALE TAX LIABILITY WAS DEFERRED UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER, WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS AND DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MADE THE ADDITION. ON THE OTHER HAND, SH RI V.S. JADHAV, LD. DR, INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE FACTUAL FINDING RECORDED IN 1.3.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY SUBMITTING THAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE SALES TAX, COLLECTED BY HIM BEF ORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACT S, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO, THE MATTER TRAVE L TO THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECT ED TO VERITY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF SUCH DIRECTION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FIL E EVIDENCE SUCH AS PAYMENT OF THE SALES TAX OR COPY OF THE SAL ES TAX ORDER DEFERRING SUCH LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEE DID N OT SUBMIT THE DETAILS AND SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER SUCH PAYMENT S WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR IT WAS DEFERRED UNDER THE SALES TAX SCHEME. BEFORE ADVERTING FURTHER, I AM REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR READY REFERENCE:- ITA NO.1859/MUM/2015 M/S LAUREL WIRES LTD. 3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND EXPLANATION GI VEN BY THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSES SING OFFICER. I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD .AO AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF SALE TAX ON THE CONTRARY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL THAT SUCH T AX IS PAID OR DEFERRED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING O F RETURN WAS FACTUALLY WRONG. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NEITHER SUCH PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY NOR WAS IT DEFERRED BY THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER THE SCHEME . THEREFORE, THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS WRONG. FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT THAT TURNOVER TAX LIABILITY OF RS.16,60,3 32/- WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL BALANCE SHEET IS FACT UALLY INCORRECT. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ENTIRE LIABILITY W AS NOT PAID OR DEFERRED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IS ALSO A CORRECT STAT EMENT OF FACT. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD, THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. DURING HEARING, THE AFORESAID FACTUAL FINDING WAS B ROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE BENCH TO WHICH THE LD. ITA NO.1859/MUM/2015 M/S LAUREL WIRES LTD. 4 COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE AGAIN SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)/ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, I AM NOT AGR EE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE, AS MENTION ED EARLIER, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. IT IS NOTED THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND EVEN B EFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WAS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE UNCONTROVERTED FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING SET-AS IDE PROCEEDINGS, RETAINING THE ADDITION AND FACTUAL FIN DING RECORDED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS AFFI RMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN TH E PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 12/01/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 12/01/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. ITA NO.1859/MUM/2015 M/S LAUREL WIRES LTD. 5 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI