DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI V. PUNJAB FORMULATIONS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4802/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7802 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTALDR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4802/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DCIT-10(3)(2), R. NO.217, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S PUNJAB FORMULATIONS LTD. 340, LAXMI PLAZA, LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDERI (W), MUMBAI-400053 ( / REVENUE) ( ! /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO. AADFP7039D / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJAT MITTAL-DR ! / ASSESSEE BY NONE ' # $ ! % / DATE OF HEARING : 19/12/2017 $ ! % / DATE OF ORDER: 19/12/2017 PUNJAB FORMULATIONS LTD. ITA NO.4802/MUM/2015 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 05/06/2015 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI, ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE HIM, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHHELD M ATERIAL INFORMATION, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WITH RE SPECT TO UNPROVED LOAN AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) AND SUCH MATERIAL WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THIS IS VIOLATION OF RULE-46A O F THE RULES. 2. DURING HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESS EE. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 24/08/2015 AND WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 16/05/2017. ON THAT DATE ALSO, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, BEING T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE LD. DR WAS DIRECTED TO EF FECT THE SERVICE UPON THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN ON 08/11/2017, NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. TODAY, I.E. 19/12/2017, T HE LD. DR CLAIMED THAT SERVICE WAS DULY EFFECTED UPON THE ASS ESSEE ON 16/06/2017 AND SHOWED THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH SERVICE. IN PUNJAB FORMULATIONS LTD. ITA NO.4802/MUM/2015 3 SPITE OF SERVICE, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED IT SELF NOR MOVED ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY, THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, AND TEND TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, ADVANCED ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY CONTENDING THAT THE MATERIAL INFORMATION WAS NEVER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THUS, ITS A VIOLATION OF RULES-46A OF THE RULES. 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF MANUFACTURING AND DEALS IN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, DECLARED INCOME OF RS.63,68,616/- ON 30/09/2011. TH E RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER O N, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THE REFORE, NOTICES U/S 143(2) DATED 02/08/2012 AND 142(1) NOTI CE PUNJAB FORMULATIONS LTD. ITA NO.4802/MUM/2015 4 DATED 31/12/2012 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE SERV ED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE T HE NECESSARY DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE FILED PART DETAILS. UPON CHANGE OF INCUMBENT, AGAIN NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SE RVED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS AND VIDES NOTICE DAT ED 03/01/2014, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COMPL ETE DETAILS. THE NOTICE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER ALSO. THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE A SSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE. AGAIN, NOTICE DATED 03/01/20 14, THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DETA ILS. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAME D U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THIS ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS REPLY AND THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. ADMIT TEDLY, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS POWER T O ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT AT THE SAME TIME SINCE IT WAS IN THE FORM OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT WAS THE DUT Y OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONFRONT THE SAME TO T HE LD. PUNJAB FORMULATIONS LTD. ITA NO.4802/MUM/2015 5 ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ME RITS OF THE APPEAL, WE REMAND THIS FILE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) TO ADJUDICATE T HE ISSUES AFRESH ON MERIT. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH US, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES ONLY. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 19/12/2017. SD/- ( RAMIT KOCHAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' # MUMBAI; ' DATED : 19/12/2017 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )*+, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / / ' 0! ( )* ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / / ' 0! / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI PUNJAB FORMULATIONS LTD. ITA NO.4802/MUM/2015 6 5. 23 -! , / )*% ) 4 , ' # / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5 6# / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, .2*! -! //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' # / ITAT, MUMBAI