Mahesh Edible Oil Industry Ltd., Agra V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2051/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3668 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2051/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRY LIMITED, VS. ACIT, RANGE 6, 3/14-A, JUNGPURA B, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 014. (PAN : AACCM7102J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. MONGA, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-IX, NEW DELHI DATED 14.12.2010. THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT (A)-IX DISPOSED THE APPEAL EX-PARTY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS & THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2. BECAUSE THE LD. CIT (A)-IX WHILE REJECTING THE A PPEAL OF THE APPELLANT HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER AN Y WRITTEN OR ORAL SUBMISSION WERE MADE BEFORE HIM, WHICH IS CONT RARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. BECAUSE THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. C IT (A)- IX DO NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.2051/DEL./2011 2 4. BECAUSE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT IS DENIED OF THE NATURAL JUS TICE. 5. BECAUSE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE AWARDED THE C OST IN VIEW OF THE PATENT NEGLIGENCE BY THE LD. CIT (A)-IX IN P ASSING THE ORDER EX-PARTY, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF H EARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTH ER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODU CTION OF MUSTARD OIL AND MUSTARD CAKE BY CRUSHING MUSTARD SEED. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE TWO ADDITIONS, ONE ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK OF RS.1, 18,130/- AND ANOTHER OF RS.3,18,792/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVOUCHED EXPENSES. TH E ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT (A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 6.0 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT NEITHER MADE ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL SUBMISSI ON NOR SUBSTANTIATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ANY WAY. NO N PURSUING OF THE APPEAL IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION TO CHALLENG E THE DECISION OF THE A.O. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. IN VIEW OF TH E AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND UPHOLD TH E ADDITION(S) AMOUNTING TO RS.4,36,922/- MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO.2051/DEL./2011 3 3. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FROM THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS REJECTED AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 4. AFTER HEARING THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY PASSING A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) A ND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE CIT (A) SHALL DECIDE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIR ECTED TO APPROACH THE CIT (A) WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDE R REGARDING THE DATE OF HEARING IF HE WANTS TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE TH E CIT (A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2011 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 22 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2011 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-IX, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.