Shriram Jawahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Udyog, Phaltan V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Satara Circle, Satara

ITA 381/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4844 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KALIKA SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J UDICIAL M EMBER . / I TA NO. 381 /PUN/20 18 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 SHRIRAM JAWAHAR SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR UDYOG, AT POST. PHALTAN, DIST. SATARA - 415 523. PAN : AACAS5389M ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE REVENUE BY : SHRI KALIKA SINGH / DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 . 05 .2021 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 13, PUNE DATED 08.09.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE - 13 HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE AM OUNT OF RS.8,00,60,988/ - FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON SALARIES PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES OF SHRIRAM SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, PHALTAN. 2 ITA NO. 381 /PUN/20 18 A.Y. 2011 - 12 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,00,60,9 88/ - MADE IN RESPECT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON SALARY BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE PERMISSION TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, REVISE, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THERE IS DELAY OF 75 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONDONATION PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. THE REASONS OF DELAY HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED IN THEM. THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE REASONS, IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE DELAY CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO T HE DIRECT CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE DELAY WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY. THE LD. DR ALSO CONCEDED TO THESE FACTS. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES HEREIN, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE CASE IS HEARD ON MERITS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF WHITE CRYSTAL SUGAR, SPIRIT AND COUNTRY LIQUOR. THE ASSESSEE E - FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME ON 29.09.2011 DECLARING ITS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THIS RE TURN OF INCOME WAS REVISED ON 18.09.2012 DECLARING ITS NET LOSS AT RS.( - )6,72,96,600/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) MADE ADDITION OF RS.8,00,60,988/ - U/S .40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BEING THE PAYMENT MADE U/S.194C OF THE ACT WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX ON IT. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,17,22,658/ - AS AGAINST ITS RETURNED NET LOSS OF RS. ( - )6,72,96,600/ - . 4. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE ONE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAVING THE CONCERNED JURISDICTION. THEREAFTER, CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING 3 ITA NO. 381 /PUN/20 18 A.Y. 2011 - 12 OFFICER. THAT AGAINST SUCH ORDER OF A SSESSING OFFICER, THEY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CONCERNED CIT(APPEALS) WHICH WAS PENDING . SIMULTANEOUSLY, AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEY HAVE FILED ANOTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHI CH IS THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE US . IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT W ERE ACTUALLY THE SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL WHICH WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE PARA 2.2 OF H IS ORDER WHEREIN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN . THEREAFTER, AT PARA 2.3, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS : 2.3 IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED TOTALLY IRRELEVANT WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED FOR THE ABOVE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE REASON AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,00,60,988/ - IN THE ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , THOUGH KNOWING THAT SUBMISSIONS WERE MISPLACED THEREIN. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE SUB - ORDINATE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES HEREIN, WE FIND THAT IT IS CORRECT , THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THAT 4 ITA NO. 381 /PUN/20 18 A.Y. 2011 - 12 NONETHELESS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE CORRECT SUBMISSIONS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSE E SO THAT THEY CAN REPRESENT THEIR CASE ON MERITS BY FILING CORRECT SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IN VIEW THEREOF, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REMAN D THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW COMPLYING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 20 TH DAY OF MAY , 20 2 1 . S D/ - S D/ - INTURI RAMA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 20 TH MA Y , 202 1 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) - 13, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT - 3, PUNE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // T RUE C OPY // / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 5 ITA NO. 381 /PUN/20 18 A.Y. 2011 - 12 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 20.05.2021 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20.05.2021 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER