M/s. M. Kantilal Exports, Surat V. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2, Surat

ITA 3246/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6151 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA; B S SADHU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING: 3.06.10 DRAFTED ON:3.06.2010 ITA NO.3246/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 M/S. M. KANTILAL EXPORTS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT, C/O. ASHWIN PAREKH & CO. 410, KASHI PLAZZA, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. VS. ACIT/CENTRAL, CIRCLE-2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFM4325L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B.S.SADHU CIT, D.R. & C.K.MISHRA D.R. O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)- III, SURAT, DATED 5.05.2007. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I NO ADJUDICATING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES RS.1,92,05,203/- AT 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES FOR OWN MANUFACTURING OF POLISHED DIAMONDS DESPITE THE GROU ND RAISED IN APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPR ECIATE - 2 - THE FACTS OF SIMILAR RATE ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEAR. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,92,05,203/- SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SHRI ASHWIN K. PAREKH (C.A.) HAS APPLIED FOR ADJOUR NMENT OF THE HEARING WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE BENCH AS THE REAS ON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING WAS NOT FOUND TO BE A PL AUSIBLE ONE. THE BENCH BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE DISP OSED OF WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QU A THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE PROJEC TED IN THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENUINE AS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJUDIC ATED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.1,92,05,20 3/- BEING 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES FOR OWN MANUFACTURING OF POLISHED DI AMONDS EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AS GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REST ORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICAT ING THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED - 3 - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) REGARDING DISAL LOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.1,92,05,203/-. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS OMITTED TO DECIDE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE HIM BY TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE T HIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPE ALS) AND DIRECT HIM TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE H EARING ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF JUNE 2010. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF MAY, 2010 PARAS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-III, SURAT. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD - 4 - DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03.06.2010 --------------- ---- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 03.06.2010 ----- -------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 03.06.2010 ----------- -------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 03.06.2010 ----------- -------- JM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 03.06.2010 --------- ----------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- --- ----------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 04.06.2010 ------- ------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- --- ------------------