Lucky Dyeing Mills Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(4), Surat

ITA 1948/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6089 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1948 / AHD / 201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO. 1948 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 0 5 - 06 LUCKY DYEING MILLS PVT. LTD. ..... .......... .APPELLANT PLOT NO.1 TO 9,OPP. BRC, UDHNA, SURAT 394 210 . [PAN: A AACL 4047 R ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(4), SURAT. .. ......... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: RAJESH M. UPADHYAY , FOR THE APPELLANT D INESH SINGH , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 1 4 . 0 2 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 28 .04. 2017 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 21 ST JUNE 2 01 3 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC TION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 06 . 2. THE ONLY G RIEVANCE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS FOLLOWS : - LD. CIT(A) - I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM ASSESSING OFFICER S ADDITION OF RS.3,40,406/ - U/S 69C OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF LIGNITE WHEN ITS FACTORY CLOSED PRODUCTION IN OCTOBER, 2004. FURTHER, LD. CIT HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING A CERTIFICATE AND CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. DHARAMRAJ ENTE RPRISE (TRANSPORTER), WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF ISSUE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN FOLLOWING IT A T, AHMEDABAD DIRECTION JUDICIALLY. ITA NO. 1948 / AHD / 201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF PRO CEEDING, AND IT PERTAINS TO AN ADDITION OF RS 3,40,403 UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE FROM GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE MATTER HAD REACHED A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL , AN D THE DIVISION BENCH, VIDE ORDER DATED 12 TH AUGUST 2011, HAD REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. IN T HE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM GMDC THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD LIFTED COAL FROM GMDC FOR THE VALUE OF RS 3,40,403 DURING THIS PERIOD AND THAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CREDITED BY RS 7,85,682 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PAYMENT OF ONLY RS 4,45,289 BY BANK DEMAND DRAFT. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, TOOK THE STAN D THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO PURCHASE THE COAL AS THE FACTORY WAS CLOSED, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE DEMAND DRAFTS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE URGED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPLY ALL THE RELATED EVIDENCES. THIS HYPER TECHNICAL STAND OF THE ASSESSEE, AND EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS REJECTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS REITERATED THE ADDITION OF RS 3,20,403. ONCE AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CITTAI BUT WITHOUT ANY SUC CESS. NOT SATISFIED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE HYPER TECHNICAL APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MEET ANY JUDICIAL APPROVAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN A COPY OF ACCOUNT IN GMDC WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT, AS PER THE GMDC, THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE COAL WAS LIFTED. THE EVID ENCE ABOUT CLOSURE OF FACTORY, EVIDENCE ABOUT THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE S REGULAR COMMISSION AGENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS TRANSACTION AND EVIDENCE ABOUT HAVING COMMUNICATED OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ABOUT CLOSURE OF FACTORY IS ITA NO. 1948 / AHD / 201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 3 IRRELEVANT. EVEN IF THE FACTOR Y WAS CLOSED, EVEN IF FACT OF FACTORY CLOSURE WAS GIVEN TO THE PARTIES AND EVEN IF THIS TRANSACTION WAS NOT ENTERED INTO BY ASSESSEE S REGULAR COMMISSION AGENT, THE EVIDENCE ABOUT PAYMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COAL BEING LIFTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE EXISTS AND IT CANNOT BE WISHED AWAY. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SEEK CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE GMDC, NOR DID HE TAKE UP THE MATTER DIRECTLY WITH THE GMDC, IN THIS REGARD. THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UP THE M ATTER WITH GMDC AT ALL. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY THE 28 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 28 TH DAY OF APRIL , 2017 . PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) TH E APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD