ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Pankaj Bahi, Delhi

ITA 5203/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 520320114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: N S BHATNAGAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5203/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHRI PANKAJ BAHL, WARD-35(4), NEW DELHI. VS. B-248, SURAJMAL VIHAR, DELHI-110092. PAN : AAHPB4861H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATPAL SING H, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.S. BHATNAGA R, ADVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 10-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-12-2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 10 TH JULY, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y, NEW DELHI ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.21,31,792/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER S EC. 80IC OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT OF GROSS PROFIT AND ITA NO.5203/DEL/2012 2 APPLICATION OF PROFIT RATE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , FURTHER IGNORING THE BOOK RESULTS OF DELHI UNIT IN COMPARISON TO THE SOLAN UN IT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SATPAL SINGH, LEARNED SR. DR AND SHRI N.S. BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT THE AO RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WAS 35.6%. THE LEARNED SR. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONCLUDING PAGE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT PAY TO THE PURCHASERS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT RELIABLE, CONSEQ UENTLY REJECTED. THE ADOPTION OF NET PROFIT RATE WAS CLAIMED TO BE JUSTI FIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. BHATNAGAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO FILED FRE SH DOCUMENT CONTAINING DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS (NEW ALLIED LPG ALLIANC ES) AND SAFFRON INDIA RUNNING INTO 4 PAGES. THE LEARNED SR. DR STRONGLY OBJECTED OF FILING OF NEW EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THESE DOCUMENTS/DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO, CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT E ITHER THESE DOCUMENTS MAY NOT BE ADMITTED OR MAY BE SENT TO THE FILE OF T HE AO FOR EXAMINATION. MR. BHATNAGAR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THESE ARE FRESH DETAILS BUT GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. ITA NO.5203/DEL/2012 3 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF LP GAS STOVES SINCE 1990 WITH THE NAME OF M/S. SAFFRON INDIA & NEW ALLIED LPG APP LIANCES IN HIMACHAL PRADESH AS WELL AS IN DELHI. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80IC OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS. THE UNIT AT PARWANOO (H.P.) WAS CLAIMED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED SALES AT RS.25,19,725/- FOR DELHI U NIT SHOWING GROSS PROFIT OF RS.4,21,047/- (16.71%). THE AO REJECTED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 30% WHICH RESULTED INTO ADDITION OF RS.3,34,870/-, FOR THE HIMACHAL UNIT, THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THE SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,11,34,352/- WITH THE GROSS PROFIT OF R S.1,11,04,741/- RESULTING INTO PROFIT OF 35.67%. THE ENTIRE PROFIT OF 57,60, 234/- WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIB ERATION AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED FRESH DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE DE TAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH WERE NEITHER AVAILABLE DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS NOR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, AS ASSERTED BY THE LEARN ED COUNSEL, THAT THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROTECTED, CONSEQUENTLY, WE REMAND THESE DOCUMENTS/FILE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE AND DECIDE AFRESH IN ITA NO.5203/DEL/2012 4 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE BE PROVIDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 5. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONC LUSION OF THE HEARING ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH DECEMBER, 2012. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.