IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3008/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, BARODA V/S . M/S RATNAVEER STAINLESS PRODUCTS LTD., E-77/121. GIDC, SAVLI MANJUSAR, VADODARA 391 775 [ PAN NO.AABCR 9648F ] / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT) /BY APPELLANT SHRI D.K. SINGH, SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANJAY MAJUMDAR, AR /DATE OF HEARING 03-12-2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-12-2012 / // / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, BARODA ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 28-09-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008- 09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,9 0,41,625/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO.3008/AHD/2011 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT CIR-4, BRD V. M/S RATNAVEER STAINLESS PRODU CTS LTD. PAGE 2 SUPPRESSED SCRAP SOLD OUT OF BOOKS BY SIMPLY ACCEPT ING THE STATEMENT ANNEXED TO THE APPELLATE ORDER AS ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE AND THE SAME WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO NOR REMANDED TO THE AO IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I. T. RULES. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THE AS SESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING STAINLESS STEEL PRECISION FABRICATION EQUIPMENT AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.78,03,992/- WAS FILED THEREAFTER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WA S PASSED ON 30-12- 2010 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,73,27,211 /-. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP AND UNDER-VALUATION OF FINISHED GOODS . THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS ORDER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A ) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPE AL. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE STATEMENTS SHOWING STOCK-IN-PROGRESS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AN NEXED TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AS ANNEXURE-A. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,19,41,625/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SCRA P SOLD OUT OF BOOKS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT ANNEXED TO THE APPELLATE ORDER AS ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE FACTUAL INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE AND THE SAME WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO NOR CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT TO THIS EFFECT THUS, THE ORDER ITA NO.3008/AHD/2011 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT CIR-4, BRD V. M/S RATNAVEER STAINLESS PRODU CTS LTD. PAGE 3 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE ANNEXURE-A IS IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. ON THE CONTRA RY, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS AS FORMING PART OF THE ANNEXURE-A WERE SUPPLIED TO THE AO THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO SEEK REMAND R EPORT FROM THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER USING A DIFFERENT METHOD FOR PRODUCTION WHICH GENERATED MORE SCRAP AN D SUBSEQUENTLY THE METHOD PRODUCTION WAS CHANGED, WHICH REDUCED TH E SCRAP THEREFORE, THE VARIATION IN GENERATION OF SCRAP WAS DUE TO THE CHANGE IN METHOD AND HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SCRAP WAS TREATED AS WORK -IN-PROGRESS ALSO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVE NUE IS AGAINST THE NOT NON-GRANTING OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO REBUT THE ANNEXURE-A AS NO REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AO BY LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE ANNEXURE-A TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ADMITTEDLY, NO DETAILS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN FIELD IN SUPPORT OF THE ANNEXURE-A TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IT IS ALSO N OT DISPUTED THAT THE ANNEXURE-A WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE AO BY THE LD . CIT(A). UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER T O DECIDE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DETAILS AND MORE PARTICULARLY A NNEXURE-A TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO WOULD AF FORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE DETA ILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO.3008/AHD/2011 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT CIR-4, BRD V. M/S RATNAVEER STAINLESS PRODU CTS LTD. PAGE 4 5. THE OTHER GROUND IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES N OT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP !' #- 07/12/2012 )*+ , --. --. --. --. /. /. /. /. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '+'-2 3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 3- / CIT (A) 5. .67 ---2, -2 , )*+ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 7:; <= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ >/) '? -2 , )*+ , STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 03/12 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 03/12 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 03/12 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION - - 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 04/12 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 07/12 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 07/12