M/s Siva Wines, Eluru V. The CIT, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry

ITA 201/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94083 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M N M NAIK SR
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.201/VIZAG/2012 SIVA WINES, ELURU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.201/VIZAG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SIVA WINES ELURU VS. CIT RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ABFFS 7134P ASSESSEE BY: N O N E REVENUE BY: SHRI M.N.M. NAIK, SR.AR DATE OF HEARING : 27.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2015 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMFL. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY D ETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,69,620/-, WHEREIN THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 3% OF THE PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH SALES WERE MADE. 2. THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY CALLED FOR THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE SAME WHEREIN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE A .O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ESTIMATING THE PROFIT WITH REFERENCE TO THE NET PURCHASES WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, VIS AKHAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF M.VEERABHADRA RAO & OTHERS (ITA NOS.345 AND 346/VIZAG/1998) WHEREIN SALES WERE ESTIMATED AT 8 TIMES OF THE PURC HASE PRICE ON WHICH NET PROFIT @ 1% WAS ESTIMATED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OB SERVED THAT THE ORDER ITA NO.201/VIZAG/2012 SIVA WINES, ELURU 2 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY TO THE BINDING DECISION OF THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE QUANTITATIVE BREAKUP OF STOCK AND ALSO FAILED TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS, ETC. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO ANALYSE THE SOURCES FOR PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEES AND DID NOT CALL FOR THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT DEBI TED TOWARDS B.G. COMMISSION. HAVING REGARD TO THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE MA TTER, WHILE COMPLETING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT IN THE LINE OF THE RATIO LA ID DOWN BY THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. V. RAMULU, KAKINADA. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 36, THE SAME WAS RETURNED UN-SERVED WITH THE POSTAL REM ARK ADDRESSEE LEFT WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNIS HED THE CHANGED ADDRESS, IF ANY, TO THE REGISTRY. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSS IBLE TO SEND FRESH NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER THE ITAT RULES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CORRECT ADDRESS IN F ORM-36 AND IF THERE IS CHANGE OF ADDRESS, THE SAME HAS TO BE INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE CORRECT ADDRESS, WE HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, QUA THE A SSESSEE. 4. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE LD. COM MISSIONER HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS AS TO WHY HE HAD ARRIVED AT A CONC LUSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FILED IN THE FOR M OF PAPER BOOK TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS OF THE LD. COMM ISSIONER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE REVISIONAL ITA NO.201/VIZAG/2012 SIVA WINES, ELURU 3 AUTHORITY DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND TH EREFORE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2015 SD/- SD/- ( B.R. BASKARAN ) ( D. MANMOHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 27 TH JULY, 2015 VG/SPS COPY TO 1 SIVA WINES, 25-15-18, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, GNT ROA D, ELURU. 2 THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM