ITO WD 2(1), Jamshedpur V. M/s Om dayal Ingots & Steel company P Ltd, Jamshedpur

ITA 207/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9614 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MOHANTY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 207 /RAN/ 201 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 207 /RAN/201 6 A.Y. : 20 09 - 201 0 ITO WARD - 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR V S M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS & STEEL COMPANY PVT. L TD MADHU VATIKA M.E.SCHOOL, JUGSALAI, JAMSHEDPUR P AN NO. : A A ACO 7034 M (APPELLANT ) . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY :SHRI A.K.MOHANTY, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 . 05 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 05 .201 8 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A ) , JAMSHEDPUR , DATED 25.04.2016 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE MATTER WA S CALLED FOR HEARING, HOWEVER, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT DUE TO SOME MEDICAL AILMENT HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT A PLAUSIBLE ONE , THEREFORE, THE BENCH DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR. 2 ITA NO. 207 /RAN/ 201 6 3. T HE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.2,63 ,15,090/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING FIXED ASSETS SALES FIGURE MENTIONED IN THE DEPRECIATION CHART IS PART OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF TH E ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVING EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO.ITO/W2(1)/JR/R.REPORT/2015 - 16 DATED 28.03.2016 FOR FURNISHING REMAND REPORT AS D ESIRED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF INGOTS AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 ON 30.09.2009 WITH TOTAL INCOM E OF RS. NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED ON 27.03.2014 U/S.147 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AS ITS RETURN OF INCOME . THEREA FTER THE AO COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT U/S.143(3)/147 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,63,15,090/ - AND PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT, DATED 3 1.03.2015 . 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT( A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF AO, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO. 207 /RAN/ 201 6 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7 . LD. DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,63,15,090/ - MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT. LD DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT WAITED TILL TH E REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE AO, THEREFORE, PRAYED FOR RESTORING THE ORDER OF AO 8 . WE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, THE SOLE MATRIX OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE DEPRECIATION. THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT WAITING FOR THE REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE AO. WE ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO BUT TILL 11 TH APRIL, 2016 THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISION AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THE CIT(A) HAS N OT WAITED WHEN THE REQUEST WAS SENT FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHICH SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE ENTIRE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WHO SHALL EXAMINE AND VERIFY AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER RECEIVING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 ITA NO. 207 /RAN/ 201 6 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 / 05 /201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S.SAINI ) ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RANCHI, DATED 30 / 05 /201 8 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT ITO WARD - 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS & STEEL COMPANY PVT. LTD MADHU VATIKA M.E.SCHOOL, JUGSALAI, JAMSHEDPUR 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT , CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE.