ATM FORGINGS, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (3), JALANDHAR

ITA 600/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0790 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.599 & 600/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2001-02 & 2002-03 ATM Forgings, D-163, Focal Point, Jalandhar. [PAN:- AADFA8276F] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Jalandhar. (Respendent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appealswere filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) -1, Jalandhar, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. CIT(A)-1/Jal/498/07-08,date of order 28.06.2019, for A.Y. 2001-02 and another order bearing appeal no. CIT (A)-1/Jal/49/2016-17, date of order 28.06.2019 for A.Y. 2002-03. Both the orderswere passed u/s 250(6) of the I.T.A. Nos.599 & 600/Asr/2019 2 Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3) Jalandhar (in brevity the AO), both the orders were passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. The brief fact of the case is that for A.Y. 2001-02 the assessing authority had made the addition the purchase amount of Rs.2,04,910/- from the party, M/s Krishana Hardware & Mill Store for hardware goods and purchase of electric goods from the party, M/s Rajiv Electric Trading Co. amounting to Rs.2,08,986/-. The ld. AO pointed out some lacuna in the purchase bill and mismatching of the State Sales Tax Number. Accordingly the purchase was added back for A.Y. 2001- 02 with the total income of the assessee. 3. Related to AY 2002-03 a direction was made by the ITAT Amritsar Bench bearing ITA No. 91/117/Asr/2006 date of pronouncement 27/11/2014. As per the order of ITAT, the order of the ld. AO was setting aside for further verification on basis of the genuinety of the transaction and genuineness of the parties through whom the purchase were made. The ld. AO further assessed as per the direction of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench and sustained the addition on basis of the defective bill and non-existence of the State sale tax number. The assessee filed appeal for both the years before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the orders of the AO. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us for further adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.599 & 600/Asr/2019 3 4. During hearing before us, none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter was taken up after the consent of the ld. Sr. DR. Both the appeals are adjudicated as follows. In both the orders of the revenue the verification was made on basis of the defect in the bill and basis of the non-existence of the State Sales tax Number. In the grounds of appeal the assessee claimed that the submission of the assessee was not considered during the adjudicating the same by the CIT(A) which is violation of principles of natural justice. 5. ld. Sr. DR only relied on the orders of both the revenue authorities and not able to bring any contrary facts against the ground of the assessee. 6. After a thoughtful consideration of the orders of the revenue authorities and the order of the ITAT Amritsar Bench, we are in opinion that mere defect in the bills and non-existence of the State VAT Number cannot be the reason for addition of purchase. In the books of the assessee the transaction was reflected as per the claim of the assessee. The gross verification of both the parties were not made by both the revenue authorities. The appellate authority only concluded on basis of the order of the AO& had not taken any effort for cross verification of assessee & parties. We find a further adjudication should be required for ascertaining the fact of the issues. We are setting aside both the appeals to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh I.T.A. Nos.599 & 600/Asr/2019 4 adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing to conclude the matter before the revenue authority. 7. In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA 599 & 600/Asr/2019 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order