M/s. Blue Pearl International, Bhuj V. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Range, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 56/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 5624914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT . .. . . . . . , , , , . .. . . . . . , , , , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K . SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 56/RJT/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S. BLUE PEARL INTERNATIONAL V. ACIT NR.HARI DARSHAN APARTMENT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE MIRZAPAR ROAD, BHUJ GANDHIDHAM PAN: AADFB3225F . DATE OF HEARING : 04-06-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-06-2012 ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D. M. RINDANI, C.A. REVENUE BY: SHRI M. K. SINGH, D. R / // / ORDER . .. . . . . . /D. K. SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 25-10-2011 BY WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,66,889/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 2. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CIT(A) EX-PAR TE QUA THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED TWO S ETS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE C.I.T.(A) OUT OF WHICH ONLY ONE SET OF SUBMISSI ONS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) AS EVIDENT FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED B Y HIM. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE. HE PRAYED THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD THEREFO RE BE SET-ASIDE AND THE MATTER RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT REBU T THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPIES OF BOTH SETS OF WRITTEN S UBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS APPARENT ON PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED ONLY ONE SET OF WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO REFERENCE IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER TO THE SECOND SET OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED A COPY OF THE SAID REMAND REPORT. AFTER CO NSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIA TE TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FO R A FRESH DECISION IN CONFORMITY WITH 2 ITA 56/RJT/2012 LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ) + 08 -06-2012 - ) ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-06-2012 SD/- SD/- ( .. / T. K. SHARMA) ( .. / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +/ DATE 08-06-2012. /RAJKOT ) )) ) 01 01 01 01 21 21 21 21 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. 5 / APPELLANT-M/S. BLUE PEARL INTERNATIONAL, BHUJ.. 2. 075 / RESPONDENT-THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME =TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM.. 3. : / CONCERNED CIT. 4. :- / CIT (A)-XX, AHMEDABAD.. 5. 1 0, , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ASSTT. REGISTRAR/ , / ITAT, RAJKOT