M/s. The Pearly Stone Pvt. ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2921/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3867 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAMMED MUSTAFAJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: V SWAMINATHAN
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . # , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2921/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) M/S. THE PEARL STONE PVT.LTD., 5, RANGANATHAN AVENUE STREET, KELLYS, CHENNAI-600 010. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-3(2), CHENNAI-34. PAN: AADCT2093C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. V.SWAMINATHAN, C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA,JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 7 TH DECEMBER, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9 TH DECEMBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)- 11, CHENNAI DATED 19.09.2016 IN ITA NO.149/1516 /CIT(A)- 11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S., SECTION 2 50(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LI MITATION OF 101 DAYS. HOWEVER, BEFORE US THE LEARNED AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE MISPLACEMENT OF FILE BY THE COUNSEL OF THE 2 ITA NO.2921 /MDS/2016 ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR NO FAULT ON ITS PART. A FTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE APP EAL ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD DISALLOWED ` 4,32,17,589/- BEING PURCHASES MADE IN THE NAME OF FIVE SUNDRY CREDITORS CONSIDERING IT NOT TO BE GENUINE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT FOR ` 50,53,140/-. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE SUPPLIER S WERE GENUINE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF A SSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P RODUCE 3 ITA NO.2921 /MDS/2016 THE SUPPLIERS IN PERSON AND ESTABLISH THEIR GENUINE NESS, HENCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER PLEADED SAYING THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLI SH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE CREDITORS / SU PPLIERS. HE ALSO FILED A FRESH PAPER BOOK SUPPORTING HIS ARG UMENTS. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND FURTHER POINTED OUT T HAT THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. HENCE, IT WAS R EQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THOUGH WE DO NOT C ONSIDER MUCH STRENGTH IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GR ANTED TO 4 ITA NO.2921 /MDS/2016 THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PU RCHASES. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION . WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO-OPERATE BEFORE T HE REVENUE IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE T HEIR ORDERS FAILING WHICH THE REVENUE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PA SS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER MERIT & LAW BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 9 TH DECEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . # ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 9 TH DECEMBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF