ITO Corporate Ward 5(4), CHENNAI V. Rasi Exports Private Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 2099/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7999 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N GOPINATH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Onus to prove

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2099/CHNY/2017 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 5(4), CHENNAI 600 034. VS M/S. RASI EXPORT PVT. LTD., NO.68, C.P. RAMASAMY STREET, ALWARPET, CHENNAI 600 018. PAN: AABCR0356E ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. GOPINATH, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 25.06.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.07.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI DATED 28.04.2017 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. SHRI N. GOPINATH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER 2 I.T.A. NO. 2099/CHNY/2017 RECONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOUND THAT 29,23,233 PCS OF UNDISCLOSED STOCK WAS TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT WARRANTED. REFERRING TO PAGE 10 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY, EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS HIMSELF AND FOUND THAT GOODS UNDER DISPUTE WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPORTED THE SAME. THEREFORE THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ALL THE MATERIALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 08.05.2015, REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE PAPER-BOOK, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE LORRY AND THE DATE OF INVOICE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE VERY SAME DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THERE IS NO FRESH MATERIAL FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 2099/CHNY/2017 ASSESSEE THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. SINCE ALL THE DETAILS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED. THEREFORE HE DELETED THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED ITSELF IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF COTTON GARMENTS, FABRICS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE INVOICES AND THE LORRY DETAILS BY WHICH THE SAME WAS TRANSPORTED. EXPORT OF GOODS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTS THE PURCHASE ALONE. WHEN THE EXPORT IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EXPORTED THE GOODS WITHOUT ANY PURCHASE. 5. NOW COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AND THEREFORE THERE IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, A MERE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SHOWS THAT NO ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WAS FILED. THE LD.CIT(A) SIMPLY REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED CLEARLY PROVES GOODS 4 I.T.A. NO. 2099/CHNY/2017 UNDER DISPUTE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPORTED. IT DOES NOT SPOKE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL. THE DETAILS OF INVOICE AND THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORT BY LORRY ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A). HAVING FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASE INVOICE AND THE DETAILS OF LORRY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS. THEREFORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE REVENUE. THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WAS PURCHASE AND EXPORT. THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THI S TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 TH JULY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 18 TH JULY, 2019. RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. [ /GF