Captain Sarees Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Surat

ITA 3332/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6440 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMIR TEKRIWA LA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3332/AHD/2009 . ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH,AH MEDABAD. ( BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL) I.T .A. NO. 3332/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) CAPTAIN SAREES PVT. LTD., C/O. POONAM DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PRIVATE LTD., 286, G.I.D.C., PANDESARA SURAT-394 230. (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACC 9471 G APPELLANT BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWALA, SR. D.R. ( (( ( )/ )/)/ )/ ORDER PER: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT (A)-I, SURAT DATED 23-09-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS, IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 68,187/- UNDER SECTION 4 1(1) FOR LIABILITY CEASING TO EXIST. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS, IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 3,67,721/-ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE SALARY AND STAFF WELFARE, ADVERTISEME NT AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES AND GREY CHECKING EXPENSES MORE THAN PROPORTION OF TURNOVER AS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR. ITA NO.3332/AHD/2009 . ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 2 2. IT IS STATED THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 1 1 DAYS. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ANIL GARG DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS FILED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY WHICH WAS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPEAL PAPERS HA NDED OVER TO THE COURIER COMPANY FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THERE IS NOMIN AL DELAY, THE LD. D.R. HAS NO OBJECTION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, WE CONDONE TH E DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND NO DETAILS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ON BOTH THE GROUNDS. ADDITIONS WER E ACCORDINGLY MADE. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON COOPERATIVE AND NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. LD. CIT (A) I THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUBMISSION, MATERIAL ON RECORD DISMISSED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS INTENDING TO PRODUCE THE DETAIL S BEFORE THE A.O. THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE O F THE A.O. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SHRI SAMIR TEKRIW ALA RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT CO- OPERATE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMIS SED. ITA NO.3332/AHD/2009 . ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 3 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THA T ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON BOTH TH E GROUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON CO-OPERATIVE AND EVEN NO BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE FOR REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. EVEN NO GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IS PRODUCED AS TO WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. CONSIDERING THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAIL OR EVIDENCE EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL,. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 - 05 - 2011 . S SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD. DATED: 31 - 05 - 2011. S.A.PATKI. ITA NO.3332/AHD/2009 . ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-I,SURAT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION - -2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING / / 2011 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2011. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2011 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2011 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2011. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..