ACIT, Meerut V. M/s Anand Duplex Ltd., Meerut

ITA 5096/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65975 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANURADHA MISRA
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5096/DEL /20112 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE 1, VS. ANAND DUPLEX LTD., MEERUT. 85, SAKET, MEERUT. (PAN/GIR NO.AABCA4927A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADV. REVENUE BY : MRS. ANURADHA MISRA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)- MEERUT, DATED 03.07.2012, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10, WHEREBY BESIDES CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) BEING IN VIOLA TION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS.2,29,49,502/- AS UNPROVED SUNDRY CREDITORS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO CONFIRM THEM AND ANOTHER DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,27,27,605/- BEING INFL ATED PURCHASES OUT OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.12,72,76,048/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT LETTERS OF ENQUIRY IN 12 CASES SENT TO THE PARTIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH AND PURCHASES TO THE MAGNITUDE OF RS.8,34,01,381 REMAINED UNPROVED OUT OF WHICH ASSES SING OFFICER DISALLOWED MERELY RS.1,27,27,605/- TREATING ONLY 10% OF THE TOTAL PUR CHASES AS INFLATED AND THUS ADDED ONLY A BARE MINIMUM AMOUNT OUT OF UNCONFIRMED SUMS OF RS .8.34 CRORES BY TAKING SUPPORT FROM VARIOUS CASE LAWS. I.T.A. NO.5096/DEL./2012 (A.Y. : 2009-10) 2 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E FAILED TO GET CONFIRMED THE AMOUNTS AS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE HAVING BEEN GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WHEREAS C IT(A) HAS ACCEPTED SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT WAITI NG FOR THE REMAND REPORT SOUGHT FOR WHICH WAS YET TO BE REPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND AFTER CONSIDERING SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SO, ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT ONLY VIOLATIVE OF RULE 46A O F THE RULES, BUT ALSO NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW INASMUCH AS ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED WI THOUT VERIFICATION HAVING BEEN MADE BY CIT(A) AT HIS LEVEL. IT WAS THUS PLEADED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER ON HIS FILE FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH. 4. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY FAIRLY SUBM ITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES APPEARS TO HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE CIT(A) AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD.DR. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND T O HAVE FAIR PLAY IN THE MATTER, APPEAL CAN BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR RE-CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE GROUND FILED WI TH MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND FIND THAT CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS NOT ONLY BEEN ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A), BUT CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE A LSO BEEN DELETED, WHEN REPLY TO REMAND REPORT HAD NOT YET COME. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE HOLD THAT ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT ONLY VIOLATIVE OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES, BUT ALSO IN CONTRAVENTION OF RELEVANT PROVIS IONS OF LAW. AS SUCH WHILE ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPU GNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF T HE APPEAL AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO I.T.A. NO.5096/DEL./2012 (A.Y. : 2009-10) 3 THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER WHILE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A AND OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE GETS ACCE PTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03.12.2012. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (U.B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : DEC. 03, 2012. SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A), MEERUT. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT