The ITO, Ward-4(4), Baroda V. M/s. Venus Lamination Ltd., Dist.Baroda

ITA 3807/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 137 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0169 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD DBENCH BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3807/AHD/2008 [ASSTT.YEAR:1995-96] INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S. V ENUS LAMINATION LTD. WARD-(4), BARODA GUJA RAT SPUN PIPE COMPOUND, PADRA ROAD, AT & P.O. SAMIYALA DIST. BARODA PAN NO.AABCV5828K REVENUE BY: SHRI C.K. MISH RA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF ORDER RESERVED: 07/01/10 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, BARODA IN APPEAL NO.CAB/I I/298/06-07 DATED 25-09-2008. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD-4[4], BA RODA U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 255 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 22-12-2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSION OF PR OFIT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS AT THE PREMISES OF SISTER CONCERN AND COULD NOT GIVE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR PU RCHASE FROM SISTER CONCERN. 3. HAVING HEARD THE LD.SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE AND GOING THROUGH THE CASE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERE D THE PURCHASE RECORDS OF SISTER CONCERN AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE BUT THIS WAS PRODUC ED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE ITA NO.3807/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1995-96 ITO WD-4[4], BARODA V. M/S. VENUS LAMINATION L TD. PAGE 2 CIT(A) AND WE FIND FURTHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE DESPITE ISSUE OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ON 15-12 -2006. AS THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE TO SUPPORT THEI R CASE. WE FEEL THAT THIS ISSUE NEED RE-EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF CIT(A) AFRESH A ND DECIDE AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 18 TH JANUARY 2010 SD/- SD/- (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 18/01/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-III, BARODA 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD