Dabur Tiles Co., V. ITO, Ward-4,

ITA 2679/DEL/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7083 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2679/DEL/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 M/S DABUR TILES CO. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VILLAGE : LADPUR DISST. JHAJJAR WARD-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVAR PARK, DELHI ROAD, ROHTAK, HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NOS. 1570 & 1571/DEL/2004 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1995-96 & 1997-98 M/S DABUR BRICKS CO. VS. ITO, WARD-4 VILLAGE: FAIZABAD DISTT. JHAJJAR AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVAR PARK, DELHI ROAD, ROHTAK, HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. NAVIN GUPTA, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24-08-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 05-09-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THESE 3 APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, 1995-96 & 1997-98 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUES ITA NOS.2679/DEL/2003 & 1530-1531/DEL/2004 2 INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL , HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BY DEALIN G WITH ITA NO. 2679/DEL/2003 (AY 1999-2000). 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 2679/DEL/2003 (AY 1999-2000) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN WRONGLY UPHELD TH E REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE LD. AO. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY FACTU AL FINDING OF FACT REGARDING CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE AO ERRED IN MENTIONING THE CORRECT NUMBER OF BRICKS AND QUANTITY OF COAL FOUND DURING SURVEY AND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND REGARDING M/S GEHLOT BUILDING MATERIALS SUPPLIERS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 210011/- MADE BY THE AO BY ESTIMATING THE PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT PURELY ON ARBITRARY AND IMAGINARY BASIS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ADOPTING GP RATE OF 15.34% INSTEAD OF 12% TAKEN BY THE AO. IT AMOUNTS TO ENHANCEMENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HE DID WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT ADOPTING ANY PROCEDURES OF LAW. ITA NOS.2679/DEL/2003 & 1530-1531/DEL/2004 3 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NOS. 1530/DEL/2004 (AY 1995-96) & 1531/DEL/2004 (AY 1997-98) ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, HENCE, WE ARE ONLY REPRODUCING THE GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 1530/DEL/200 4 AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PRESS THE SPEAKING ORDER, SO MUCH SO, HE IGNORED ALL THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE APPELLA NT DID NOT APPLY FOR THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT IS AGAINST THE FACTS, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO REFUSED TO SUPPLY THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED. 4. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) USED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS ILLEGAL. 5. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT 100 TO 125 TONNES OF COALS IS REQUIRED FOR MANUFACTURING OF ONE ROUND OF BRICKS I.E. AROUND 10 LACS OF BRICKS. IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST TH E FACTS AND ALSO AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT. 6. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT NO ITA NOS.2679/DEL/2003 & 1530-1531/DEL/2004 4 PAPER/DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE HIM. ACTUALLY ALL THE PAPERS REGARDING MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS AND CONSUMPTION OF COALS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT 2925000 BRICKS OF IST CLASS ONLY WERE MANUFACTURED DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AGAINST THE FACTS. THE FIGURES ARE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. FURTHER IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT DURING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS, BRICKS OF ALL CATEGORY I.E. IST, IIND, IIIRD AND RO RA ARE MANUFACTURED. THE SALE RATE OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF BRICKS ARE ALSO DIFFERENT AND RATE ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 8. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IF INCOME IS DETERMINED BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE. PRAYER (APPEAL) IT IS THEREFORE, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY BE ACCEPTED AND YOUR HONOUR MAY VERY GRACIOUSLY HOLD, DIRECT AND ORDER: (A) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (B) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ILLEGAL, WITHO UT ANY BASIS AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, ALL THE ADDITIONS DESERVE DELETION STRAIGHTWAY. ITA NOS.2679/DEL/2003 & 1530-1531/DEL/2004 5 ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT SHALL PRAY AS DUTY BOUND, FOREVER. 4. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR H VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 08.12.2011 HAS REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERI TS AFRESH ACCORDING TO LAW, HOWEVER, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE REQU IRES THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO, HENCE, THE SAME COU LD NOT BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2011 OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REQUEST MADE BY BOTH THE PARTI ES IS GENUINE AND HENCE THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY , THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE TH E SAME DENOVO, AS PER LAW, AFTER CONDUCTING THOROUGH INVESTIGATIO N AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND PRODUCING THE EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.2679/DEL/2003 & 1530-1531/DEL/2004 6 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 3 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/09/2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 05/09/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR