Bharaneedhars Refineries (P) Ltd., Dharapuram V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 2299/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9693 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $% , & '( BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 2300 TO 2304, 2306 & 2305/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 TO 2013-14 T.M. RAMALINGAM, NO.113, PALANI ROAD, GANAPATHI PALAYAM SOUTH, KOLINJIVADI POST, DHARAPURAM 638673. PAN ADOPR7424C APPELLANT) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE. RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO. 2299/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 BHARANEEDHARS REFINERIES (P) LTD., NO.113, PALANI ROAD, GANAPATHI PALAYAM SOUTH, KOLINJIVADI POST, DHARAPURAM 638673. PAN AAECB3359A APPELLANT) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANTS BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2016 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.04.2016 - - ITA 2300 TO 2306/15 ETC. 2 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME- TAX(APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ABOVE. 2. IN THE FIRST SET OF APPEALS, THE ISSUED RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO NON-GIVING OF ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 3. THE LD. AR, SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE CASES, THERE WAS A SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES ON 31.12.20 12. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH, NOTICE U/S.153A WAS ISSUED ON 12.9.2013. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.12.2013. HOWEVER, THIS RETURN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT PROCESSED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE A CT, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 25.8. 2014 FOR EARLY CLOSURE OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ALLED FOR DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 31.10.2014. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS ON 28.11.2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I SSUED SHOW - - ITA 2300 TO 2306/15 ETC. 3 CAUSE NOTICE ONLY ON 23.3.2015, WHEREIN THE TIME WA S GIVEN UPTO 30.3.2015 AT 9.30 AM. HOWEVER, THE SAID NOTICE DAT ED 23.3.2015 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27.3.2015 A ND THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.3.2015. AGAINST THIS, THE A SSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONSOLIDATED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ON 10.9.2015. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) PASSED THE ORDE R ON 14.9.2015. THEREFORE, HE PLEADED THAT FRESH OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE NECES SARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN VARIOUS DATES FOR HEARI NG ON 9.10.2014, 28.10.2014, 14.11.2014, 28.11.2014, 19.1 2.2014 AND 30.3.2015 AND FINALLY ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.3.2015 . 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN BUT FILED BEFORE THE A O ON - - ITA 2300 TO 2306/15 ETC. 4 16.12.2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE CASE FO R SCRUTINY ONLY ON 9.10.2014 AND HE HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE ON 23.3.2015, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 30.3.2015 AND THE SAID NOTICE STATED TO BE RECEIVED ONLY ON 27.3.2015. FU RTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) H AS ALSO NOT GIVEN FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RE MIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ITA NOS.2300 TO 2306/MDS/2015. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. COMING TO ITA NO.2299/MDS/2015, THE PRIMARY GROU ND IS AS FOLLOWS : 1.3 THE NOTICE U/S.153A IS ILLEGAL AS NO INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THIS YEAR HAD BEEN FOUND/SEIZE D BY THE DEPARTMENT AS SUCH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN QUASHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT TO DISALLOW THE - - ITA 2300 TO 2306/15 ETC. 5 EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF ` 20,000/- OTHERWISE THAN BY A DEMAND DRAFT OR CHEQUE IS BAD I N LAW. 9. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ` 2,46,374/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF COCONUTS IN VIOLATION OF PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 40A(3). BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE PURCHASED COCONUTS FROM THE FARMERS BY CASH DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND RULE 6DD(E) OF THE I .T.RULES, 1962 GIVES EXEMPTION FROM THE PARTICULAR SECTION F OR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND IT WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PR OVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE ADDRESS OF T HE RECIPIENTS AND AS TO WHY COCONUTS WERE PURCHASED FROM THE FARM ERS AND AMOUNTS WERE SETTLED BY CASH. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION TO BE SUSTAINED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR., THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE COCONUTS FROM THE FARMER S AND IT FALLS UNDER THE PURVIEW OF RULE 6DD(E) OF THE I.T.R ULES. IN OUR OPINION, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED COCONUTS FROM THE FARMERS AND FROM THE TR ADERS AND - - ITA 2300 TO 2306/15 ETC. 6 THE BENEFIT OF RULE 6DD(E) OF THE I.T.RULES SHOULD BE GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PLACE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. ITA NO.2299/MDS/201 5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS.2300 TO 2306/MDS/2015 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES AND ITA NO.2299/MDS/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 13 TH OF APRIL, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ % . & '( ) ( ) * + , ) DUVVURU RL REDDY - ./012304556037- 8 9: /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! 9:;<<5=1>01>?@AB@3 )8 /CHENNAI, C9 /DATED, THE 13 TH APRIL, 2016. MPO* 9D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H- /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. J(L /GF.