M/s Praveen Ku mar & Sons (Huf), Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 550/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 55020114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KR CHOPRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.550 /DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 PRAVEEN KUMAR & SONS (HUF), VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), D-30, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT MEERUT GIR / PAN:AAIHP7393H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV AHUJA,, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KR. CHOPRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.07.2015 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), MEERUT, DATED 16.07.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THE UNDER MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT [HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS BAS IN LAW AND NOT CALLED FOR. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, (HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. AO) IS BAD IN LAW AND THE LIABILITY DETER MINED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO IS PERVERSE, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. (A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED' IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 70,2801- A S UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES FROM M/S SKOL BREWERIES, AS IN FACTS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.455/DEL/2015 2 (B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT ALL THE PURCHASE/ SALES (STOCK IN I STOCK OUT) IS RECORDED IN EXCISE REGIST ER WHICH WAS DULY VERIFIED I CERTIFIED BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES, IN FACT THERE WERE NO SUCH PURCHASES ARE BEING MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY LD AO, IS BAD IN LAW AND NOT C ALLED FOR AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. (A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 4,9 9,293/- AS UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES FROM M/S MOHAN MEAKIN LTD, MO HAN NAGAR, AS IN FACTS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE APPEL LANT. (B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT ALL THE PURCHASE/ SALES (STOCK IN I STOCK OUT) IS RECORDED IN EXCISE REGISTER WHICH WAS DULY VERIFIED I CERTIFIED BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES , IN FACTS THERE WERE NO SUCH PURCHASES ARE BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO, IS BAD IN LAW AN D NOT CALLED FOR AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD AO ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 1,83,4461- AS UN EXPLAINED PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF GENERAL BREAKAGE AND LEAKAG E AMOUNTING TO 99,2801- AND SUM OF RS. 84,1661- TOWARDS EXPIRED ST OCK LOT DESTROYED BY THE ABKARI (EXCISE) INSPECTOR, WHICH HAS BEEN RE DUCED FROM THE PURCHASES BY THE APPELLANT, IS BAD IN LAW AND NOT C ALLED FOR AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED 128 DAYS LATE. THE ASSESS EE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFID AVIT. AFTER PERUSING THE CONTENTS CAREFULLY, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND HENCE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE PASSE D AN EX-PARTE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AS TO WHY HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRE SENT HIMSELF BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSE E WAS PREVENTED BY ITA NO.455/DEL/2015 3 SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HENCE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2015. SD./- (J. S. REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:20 TH JULY, 2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 16/7 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17/7 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 20/7/15 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 20/7 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 20/7 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER