Shri Ramit Vohra, New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5243/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7077 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G S KOHLI
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5243 /DEL/201 5 AY: 2011 - 12 SH. RAMIT VOHRA VS. JCIT,RANGE 39 PROP. M/S IMPACT ENTERPRISES NEW DELHI 9210/5, MULTANI DHANDA, PAHARGUNJ NEW DELHI 110 055 PAN: AAEPV 7263 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. G.S.KOHLI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SH. AMRIT LAL, SR.D.R. ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 20 , NEW DELHI DT. 06.08 .201 5 PE RTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2011 - 12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S . 2. FACTS OF THE CASE: - THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN BOARD, PLYWOOD, TIMBER AND ALLIED ITEMS BY FORMING THE PROPRIETARY UNIT UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE IMPACT ENTERPRISES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO UNDERTAKEN TRADING IN FABRICS. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL SALES OF RS.18,69,26,877/ - ITA NO. 5243/DEL/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 SH. RAMIT VOHRA VS. JCIT, NEW DELHI 2 SHOWING GP RATE OF 4.26% WHICH IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WAS 5.90%. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS NET LOSS OF RS.5,15,204/ - AS AGAIN ST PRECEDING YEAR NET PROFIT OF RS.44,85,257/ - . 3. THE A SSESSING O FFICER (AO) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED AND HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . ON APPEAL T HE F IRST A PPELLATE A UTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE ME ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S. 1. THAT THE AO S ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT(A) WERE UNJUSTIFIED, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW OF JUSTICE. 2. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEAL) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,04,820/ - WHILE SUCH ADDITIONS WERE ONLY ARBITRARY, IMAGINARY AND WERE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE PLACED ON THE RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSTT . PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS OF THE LAW BY FILING THE ENTIRE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY THE LEARNED A O ., HOWEVER, SHE TWISTED THE SUBMISSION IN HER OWN WAY TO HAVE AN ADDITION BY HOOK OR BY CROOK. 4. THAT THE MODE APPLIED BY THE LEARNED A O . TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE IN THE EYES OF LAW OR TO ITA NO. 5243/DEL/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 SH. RAMIT VOHRA VS. JCIT, NEW DELHI 3 SAY THERE IS NO PROVISION IN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR SUCH APPLICATION. 5. THAT THE REMARK GIVEN BY THE LEARNED A O . FOR NON - PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS IS ITSELF CONTRARY TO THE FACTUAL WHERE SHE HAS ADMITTED HERSELF THAT THE Q. TALLY WAS FULLY EXAMINED AND OTHER DETAILS FILED TIME TO TIME WERE ALSO EXAMINED. 6. THAT NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR 3 PARTIES TO WHOM THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED WE RE IN DEFAULT ANYWHERE. THE NOTICES WERE FULLY COMPLIED WITH, THUS, AN ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY TREATING IT AS NON - COMPLIANCE OR DEFECTIVE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, DELETE OR ADD ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 5 . AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE ITS CASE . FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED ON 5.2.2014 AND THEREAFTER A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS GIVEN ON 11.2.2014. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 14.2.2014 AND 21.2.2014 AND FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS. YET ANOTHER SHOW CAU SE NOTICE WAS GIVEN ON 25.2.2014 WHICH WAS REPLIED TO BY THE ASSESSEE ON 4.3.2014. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 19.3.2014. THE ASSESSEE CONTRADICTS THE CLAIMS OF THE A.O. THAT HE WAS NOT WILLING TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN FACT , HE SUBMITS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS W ERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. ON 22.5.2013. THE DETAILS OF EVENTS ARE GIVEN IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE DETAILED REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE QUERY OF THE A.O. DT. 22.5.2013 DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE HIS SUBMISSIONS I N ITA NO. 5243/DEL/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 SH. RAMIT VOHRA VS. JCIT, NEW DELHI 4 RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES FROM THE REVENUE. THESE HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE ON THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE I SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 6 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH JANUARY, 2017. SD/ - (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 05 TH JANUARY, 2017. *MANGA ITA NO. 5243/DEL/2015 A.Y. 2011 - 12 SH. RAMIT VOHRA VS. JCIT, NEW DELHI 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR