M/S H.R BUILDERS & SUPPLIERS, SRINAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-3(3), SRINAGAR

ITA 466/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2194 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.466/ASR/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S H.R. BUILDERS & SUPPLIERS PROP. ZAHOOR AHMAD KHAN, 168 BUDSHAH COLONY, SANAT NAGAR, SRINAGAR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-3(3), SRINAGAR JAMMU & KASHMIR. [PAN:ASDPK 03664L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD . SR. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 1 6.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 17.03.2020 ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EES AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED. CIT(APPEALS ), J&K, JAMMU U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 01) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING T HE RATE OF PROFIT APPLIED BY THE A.O RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.2,66 ,847/- ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.33,35,590/-.IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT THE CALCULATION FOR APPLYING THE RATE AND SPLITTING THE BUSINESS RE CEIPTS UNDER SELF STYLED CALCULATIONS MADE BY THE A.O NOT QUASHED BY THE ID CIT APPEALS, IS UNJUSTIFIED UNWARRANTED BY LAW.LT IS RE QUESTED THAT THE TRADING RESULT SHOWN MAY KINDLY BE EXCEPTED. ITA N0.466/ASR/ 2017 M/S H .R. BUILDERS & SUPPLIERS VS. ITO 2 02) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING T HE RATE OF 5% ON THE TRADING TURNOVER OF RS 1,99,11,977/- AS SEPERAT ED /SPLITTED BY THE (A.O). IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE RATE OF PROFIT SO APPLIED BY THE A.O ON SPLITTED TRADING ACCOUNT AND RESTORED WITHOU T APPLICATION OF BY THE LD CIT APPEALS , IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED AND BAD IN LAW, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 03) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING A ND RETAINED THE SELF STYLED CALCULATION MADE BY THE A.O WHILE DISPO SING THE CASE AND BY SEPERATING INTEREST INCOME FROM THE TRADING & PROFIT LOSS A/C, ADDED BACK SEPERATELY AT RS.30,12,840/- IS UNJ USTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND BAD IN LAW , MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 04) THAT ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,43,142/- MADE BY THE A.O AFTER HE MISGUIDED HI MSELF, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION SO RESTORED IS UNJUSTIF IED UNWARRANTED, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.03.2015 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.44,18,420 /- AGAINST THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.15,24,784/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). VIDE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A) FOR SHORT] DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE, HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NO T INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT DESPITE BEING GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD. 4.1 ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS FOUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ON MERITS AND HAS INSTEAD DISMISSED THE ASS ESSEES APPEAL IN A SUMMARY MANNER, IN LIMINE WITHOUT DECIDING THE DISPUTED ISSUES ON MERITS. T HUS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 250(6) OF ITA N0.466/ASR/ 2017 M/S H .R. BUILDERS & SUPPLIERS VS. ITO 3 INCOME TAX ACT REQUIRING THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL, TO STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. IT IS OBVIOUS FROM PERUSAL OF SECTION 250(6) OF INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN WRIT ING AND TO DECIDE THE POINTS OF DISPUTE ON MERITS, GIVING REASONS FOR HIS DECISION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF INC OME TAX ACT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO PASS A FRESH ORDER IN DUE COM PLIANCE WITH SECTION 250(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT. ALL THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE ACCOR DINGLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR PASSING FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW, HAVING REGARD TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSES IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7/03/2020. SD/- SD/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17/03/2020. /PK/ PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THEN CIT(APPEALS) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER