Goa Carbon Ltd., Panaji V. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji., Panaji

ITA 287/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1361 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 287/PNJ/2015 : (A.Y 2009 - 10) GOA CARBON LIMITED, DEMPO HOUSE, CAMPAL, PANAJI, GOA 403 001. PAN : AAACG6842K (APPELLANT) VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MIHIR NANIWADEKAR, ADV. REVENUE BY : K.M. MAHESH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 14/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/09/2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 1 IN ITA NO. 387/PNJ/11 - 12 DT. 11.5.2015 FOR THE A.Y 2009 - 10. SHRI MIHIR NANIWADEKAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.M. MAHESH, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK AS COMPUTED BY THE AO. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUED ITS CLOSING STOCK AT MARKET PRICE WHICH WAS LOWER THAN THE COST OF PRODUCTION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF THE 2 ITA NO. 287/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) ASSESSEES PRODUCTS DURING THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. MARCH , 2009 WAS AT RS. 18,107 / - WHEREAS THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR WAS AT RS. 24,721/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE COST OF PRODUCTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE MARKET PRICE AS ON MARCH, 2009, THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUE D ITS CLOSING STOCK BY APPLYING THE RATE OF RS. 11,250/ - TO RS.18,827/ - PER TON FOR VARIOUS PRODUCTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO APPLIED THE RATE OF RS. 24,721/ - BEING THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE AO WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED AND THE VALUATION AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE BE ACCEPTED. 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED T HAT NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE COST OF PRODUCTION WAS MORE THAN THE MARKET PRICE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THE MARKET PRICE OTHER THAN A CHART MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CHART WAS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INVOICES OR DETAILS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUB MISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE AVERAGE MARKET SALE PRICE AT RS.24,721/ - FOR WORKING OUT THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK AS PER THE CHART PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOW S THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE 17 THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THEY HAVE VALUED THEIR CLOSING STOCK LESS ER THAN THE AVE RAGE COST OR THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. EVEN 3 ITA NO. 287/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) BEFORE US, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE INSOFAR AS NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PRODUCED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/09/2015. S D / - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 14/09/ 201 5 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 4 ITA NO. 287/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 14/09/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 5 /09/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 1 5 /09/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 1 5 /09/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 5 /09/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/09/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 5 /09/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER