M/s Gobind Steels, Barabanki V. The Income Tax Office, Barabanki

ITA 384/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 38423714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.384/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1994 - 95 M/S GOBIND STEELS, DUSHERABAGH, BARABANKI. PAN:ADBFS1576K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SHUBHAM RASTOGI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. K. RAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 17/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 4 /07/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 13/01/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994 - 95. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) UPHELD ADDITION OF RS.108450/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HON'BLE I.T.A.T. HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED BY LD. A. O. IN THE MANNER AS DIRECTED. 2. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. IN I.T.A. NO.181/L/2011 HAD DIRECTED TO LD. A. O. TO VERIFY THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FROM SEIZED RECORD, 2 BEING ANNEXURE - A SR. NO. 17 WHICH IS IN HIS CUSTODY AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED. 3. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 01.08.2013, THE A.O. ADMITTED THAT HE H AS NOT EXAMINED SEIZED ANNEXURE - A, SR. NO. 17, INSPITE OF THE FACT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE POSSESSION OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FURNISHED. 4. THE ADDITION UPHELD IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT COMPLYING THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E HON'BLE I.T.A.T. IN THE MANNER AS DIRECTED BY HON'BLE I.T.A.T. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS APPEAL WAS LAST DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER ORDER IN I.T.A. NO.181/LKW/2011 DATED 04/05/2011. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 13 & 14 OF THE PA PER BOOK. THEREAFTER, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTRIES ARE RECORDED IN CASH BOOK. HE POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS THE ARGUMENT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE HEARING OF THAT APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONFRONT THE SEIZED CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ENTRIES ARE RECORDED B EING S.N O. 17 OF ANNEXURE - A, WHICH IS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPOSED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH. THEREAFTER HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/12/2012 AND IT WAS POINTED OU T THAT AS PER THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER , THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE SAID SEIZED CASH BOOK WAS EVER CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN COURSE OF 3 APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) OBTAINED THE REMAND RE PORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 11 AND 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 3 OF THE REMAND REPORT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE IT IS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL I.E. CASH BOOK WAS NOT HANDED OVER BY HIS PREDECESSOR AT THE TIME OF TAKING OVER THE CHARGE AND FOR THIS REASON, THE SEIZED CASH BOOK IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH HIM TO VERIFY THE FACTS AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SEIZED CASH BOOK IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER , HE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COPY OF CASH BOOK KEPT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE N O . 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS NOT PROPER. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO. 27 OF THE PAP ER BOOK, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,08,450/ - WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS IMPREST IN CASH. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED D.R. OF THE RE VENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 04/05/2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO CONFRONT THE SEIZED CASH BOOK TO THE ASSESSEE AND VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS DULY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. AS PER THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THE SAID CASH BOOK IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SEIZED CASH BOOK IS CORRECT. THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 4 NO. 27 IN WHICH THE ENTRY IS APPEARING. CONSIDERING ALL THES E FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THESE FACTS. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 4 /0 7/ 2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FO RWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR