DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI V. M/S INDAGE VINTERS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4504/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 450419914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHAN VYASDR
• Assessee Lawyers: K GOPAL; NEHA PARANJAPE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, ,, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I MUMBAI , , ! BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.4504/MUM/2013 ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DCIT, CIR-6(1), ROOM NO. 506, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS. M/S INDAGE VINTERS LTD. INDAGE HOUSE,82, DR. A.B.RAOD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 (REVENUE) (ASSESSEE) AAACI1335D REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHAN VYAS-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.GOPAL & NEHA PARANJAPE. DATE OF HEARING : 14/10/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/10/2014 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH: JM THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 26/03/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUM BAI. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO WAS SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER INCOME/L OSS AS 2 M/S INDAGE VINTERS LTD. . . PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT RATHER THAN THE RETURN FILED WITH THE DEP ARTMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DATE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CONSIDERING INCOME AT RS.42,23,89,000/- AS PER ROI INSTEAD HOLD ING THAT INCOME BE CONSIDERED AT LOSS OF RS.5,00,08,309/- AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT.. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD AN OPPORTUNITY OF REVISING THE RETURN, WHICH IT DID NOT AVAIL AND IN VIEW OF RATIO OF APEX COURT DECISION IN GOETZE INDIA VS CIT 284 ITR 323 ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION OF THE ST AGE OF ASSESSMENT OTHER THAN WHAT IS CLAIMED IN RETURN OF I NCOME. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR CONSIDERING FRESH EVIDENCE, IF A.O.S ORDER CANNOT BE RESTORED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR ONLY ARGUED THE EFFECTIVE GROUND I.E. NO. 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSIDERING INCOME AT RS.42,23 ,89,000/- AS PER ROI INSTEAD HOLDING THAT INCOME BE CONSIDERED AT LOSS O F RS.5,00,08,309/- AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT. THE L D. DR SHRI KISHAN VYAS ADVANCE HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO TH E GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SH RI K. GOPAL ALONG WITH NEHA PARANJAPE DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONTENDING THAT THE SAID GROUND IS NOT EMANATE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AT NO POINT OF TIME SUCH DISCREPANCY/DEFECT WAS PRESENT I N THE RETURN OF 3 M/S INDAGE VINTERS LTD. . . INCOME, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS EVEN BROUG HT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS WHO WAS EXPECTED TO TAKE CORRECTIVE MEASURES. 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSI ON, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION/CONCLUDI NG PORTION FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER. I FIND THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL DOES NOT EMANATE FR OM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ALL. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN INTO INCOME ACCORDINGLY BY MAKING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2011. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME THE DISCREPANCIES/DEFECTS THAT WERE PRESENT IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME, THAT WAS STATED TO BE FILED BY AN UNTRAINED PE RSON, WAS BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE TAKEN ANY CORRECTIVE MEAS URES. THEREFORE, I FIND THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLAN T THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED ORDER WITHOUT APPLICATIO N OF MIND IS ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY BASIS FOR IT TO BE ACCEPT ED AND CONSIDERED. THE A.OS ACTION I FIND THERE IS ABSOLUTE LY CORRECT AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HO WEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO THE DETAILS OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AS FILED BY THE APPEL LANT AND VERIFY THE FACTS THEREIN VIS--VIS THE SUBMISSION M ADE NOW AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ON THIS ACCOUNT AND BRIN G THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TO TAX WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS 4 M/S INDAGE VINTERS LTD. . . ORDER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 2.2. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF, KEPT IN JUX TAPOSITION, WE FIND THAT VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LOOK INTO THE DETAILS OF RETURN OF INCOM E, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND TO VERIFY THE FACTS VIS--VIS SUBMISSION MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THIS GROUND FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THER EFORE, HOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED IS NOT KNOWN, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND DISMISSED THE SAME. 2.3. OTHER GROUNDS WERE NOT ARGUED BY THE LD. DR TH EREFORE DISMISSED AS SUCH. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION O F HEARING ON 14/10/2014. SD/- SD/- RAJENDRA JOGINDER SI NGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED -14/10/2014 F{X~{T? P.S. / ' . . % % % % & && & '() '() '() '() *)#( *)#( *)#( *)#( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT 2. '-+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. . ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. . / CIT 5. )/0 '(' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5 M/S INDAGE VINTERS LTD. . . 6. 01 2 / GUARD FILE. %' %' %' %' / BY ORDER, -)( '( //TRUE COPY// 3 33 3 / 4 4 4 4 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI