M/s. Panchvati Motors Ltd., Bathinda V. ACIT, Bathinda

ITA 641/ASR/2004

• Counselvise Citation: 64120914 RSA 2004
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NOS.638 TO 641(ASR)/2004. (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1996-97 TO 1999-2000) M/S.PANCHVATI MOTORS LTD., THE ASSTT. C.I.T., BHATINDA. CIRCLE I, BHATINDA. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. NOS.634 TO 637(ASR)/2004. (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1996-97 TO 1999-2000) THE ASSTT. C.I.T., M/S.PANCHVATI MOTORS (P) LTD. , CIRCLE I, BHATINDA. BHATINDA. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.R. JAIN, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI TARSEM LAL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 16 TH APRIL, 2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 TH APRIL, 2012 ORDER PER BENCH:- THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE FOUR DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), BHATINDA, I.E. FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 EACH DATED 13-9-2004 AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 DATED 3-9-2004. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED THE CROSS APPEALS IN EACH YEAR. 2 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000, WHICH IS IDENTICAL FOR ALL THE YEARS AND WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THE RE-ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSMENT OFF ICER BY ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S.148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THA T NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN A ROUTINE, CASUAL AND MECHANICAL MANNER W ITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND BOTH BY THE A.O. AND THE JT. C. I.T. 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND S OF APPEAL:- 1. THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECT ION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (IN SHO RT THE ACT) IS ILLEGAL, BEYOND JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW A ND VOID AB- INITIO FOR THE REASON THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED IN A ROUTINE, CASUAL AND MECHANICAL MANNER W ITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O. AND THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA HAS SANCTIONED INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 IN SIMI LAR MANNER. 2. THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTI ON 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND BEYOND JURISDICTION, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT A N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT OBTAINING SANCT ION OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER/COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO GRANT SANCTION U/S.151 OF TH E ACT. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITIONAL GROUND IS PURELY L EGAL IN NATURE FOR WHICH ALL RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD. BESIDE S, THIS GROUND HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BY ANY AUTHORITY IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS. THESE GROUNDS ARE VERY VITAL AND GO T O VERY ROOT OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, THE SAME REQUIRE TO BE ADMITTED. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT 229 ITR PAGE 383. 3 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARG UED THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD NOT DECIDED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAI SED BEFORE IT IN ITS ORDER DATED 6-7-2007 AND ALSO GROUND NO.1 HAD BEEN DECIDED IN PART. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DECIDED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 6-7-2007 SHOULD BE DECIDED NOW ALNGWIT H ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED NOW BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THIS FACT, SPECIALLY PARA 27 OF THE I.T.A.T. ORDER DATED 6-7-2007, WHIC H READS AS UNDER:- 27. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT THUS STANDS QUASHED ON T HIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO ANY O F THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE DEPA RTMENT, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS. 6. THE LEARNED D.R., SHRI TARSEM LAL, APPEARING FO R THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED SINCE THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY ARGUMENT ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONA L GROUND. RATHER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED THE ARGUMENTS BY POINTING OUT THE MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A .T. DATED 6-7-2007 ON THE LEGAL ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148. THE SAID ISSUE HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3-5-2011, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE REVENUE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN I.T.A. NO.292/2008 AND SUBSTANTIAL QUEST ION OF LAW WAS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, FOR THE SAKE OF C LARITY, READS AS UNDER:- (I) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HONBLE ITAT WAS RIGHT IN LAW TO HOLD THAT THE SERV ICE OF 4 NOTICE U/S.148 WAS INVALID AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS N OT CORRECT IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ON THE SAID GROUN DS? (II) WHETHER ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE TERMED INVALID MER ELY BY THE REASON OF ANY MISTAKE OR OMISSION IN SERVICE OF NOTICE WHEN SECTION 292B OF I.T. ACT, 1961 STATES THAT IF THE PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF I.T. ACT, 19 61, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE TERMED INVALID MER ELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN THE NO TICE? 7. THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA B AND HARYANA VIDE PARAS 13 TO 15 ARE ALSO READ AS UNDER:- 13. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IN THE RETURN WHICH WA S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE SAME WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. NO OBJECTION REGARDING VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THAT IS SO, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FAILS. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THUS, IN ERROR IN CONCLU DING OTHERWISE AND HOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE INVALID. 14. SUFFICE IT TO NOTICE, THAT THE PLETHORA OF JU DGMENTS ON WHICH LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED RELIAN CE, DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS EITHER IN THOSE CASES, SECTION 292BB OR SECTION 292B OF THE ACT WAS NOT UNDER CONS IDERATION OR IT WAS ON INDIVIDUAL FACT SITUATION INVOLVED THEREI N THAT THE CASES HAD BEEN DECIDED. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO T HE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. THE HONBE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HAD REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH O N MERITS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE I.T.A.T. IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS ONLY WHEREAS THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE 5 ASSESSEE IS PRESSING HARD AND ARGUED TO POINT OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. DATED 6-7-2007 THAT LEGAL ISS UES HAVE NOT BEEN DECIDED. WHEREAS IT IS NO SO. ONCE THE LEGAL ISSUE S HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAYANA VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 3-5-2011 AND HAS GIVEN THE DIRECTIONS TO THE I.T.A. T., THEN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING THE I.T.A.T. ARE ME RGED INTO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIDE I TS ORDER DT. 3-5-2011. SINCE FOUR YEARS HAD ELAPSED FROM THE DA TE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6-7-2007, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILE D ANY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND EVEN AFTER T HE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA WHERE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD BEEN REVERSED ON LEGAL ISSUE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO RAISE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WHICH ARE NOT AT ALL MAINTAINAB LE, WHICH HAD NOT EVEN BEEN ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH IN FACT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3-5-2011. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY T HE LEARNED D.R., SHRI TARSEM LAL, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, THAT TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. K.R. JAIN, ADVOCATE, HAD RAISED A DDITIONAL GROUNDS, IN THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US BUT HAS NOT ARGUED AN YTHING ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SO RAISED THAT WHY IT SHOULD BE ADMITTED. IN FACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO POINT OU T THE DEFECTS IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. THAT THE LEGAL GROUNDS ON 148 WERE PARTLY DECIDED RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL GROUND NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AD DITIONAL GROUNDS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL WERE NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, BEFORE US, THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/ S.254(2) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, SUCH DEFECTS CANNOT BE POINTED OUT AND, THEREFORE, SUCH 6 ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE LEARNED A.R. ARE REJECTED AN D BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE, PROBABLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE CROSS APPEAL THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AGAINST THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE AND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS HAVE NOW BEEN ELAPSED FOR FILING APPLICA TION U/S.254(23) OF THE ACT. 10. AS REGARDS ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY THE LEARNED D.R., SHRI TARSEM LAL, APPEARING FOR TH E REVENUE, THAT ALL THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE TRIBUNAL BE ING MERGED INTO THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIDE ITS PARA 13 TO 15 HAD DIRECTED THE TRI BUNAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, THE MATTER WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ON THE LEGAL ISSUE CANNOT BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THOUGH NOTHING HA S BEEN ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OR BY POINTING OUT DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF ITAT DT. 6-7-2007 ON AN ISSUE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEE N ADJUDICATED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAYANA VIDE ITS OR DER DT. 3-5-2011. . THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3-5-2011, THE ADDI TIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS, I.E. 1996-97 , 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 ARE NOT ADMITTED AND ARE REJECTED. 11. AS DIRECTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3-5-2011, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS AS ABOVE. THE ISSUES ON MERITS, I.E. GROUND NOS.2 TO 4 FOR THE DIFFERENT YE ARS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO.638(ASR)/2004 - ASSTT. YEAR: 1996-97:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,344/- ON SALE OF VEHICLES 7 AND RS.46,976/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SPARE PARTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COUR SE OF BUSINESS AND DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT AND HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE A.O. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,72,320/- ON THE BA SIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM 3RD PARTY BY THE A.O. WIT HOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THEREBY NOT AFFORDING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 4. THAT ADDITION CONFIRMED OF RS.1,72,320/- BE DEL ETED. I.T.A. NO.639(ASR)/2004 - ASSTT. YEAR: 1997-98:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,50,588/- ON SALE O F VEHICLES AND RS.36,142/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SPARE PARTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COUR SE OF BUSINESS AND DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT AND HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE A.O. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,86,730/- ON THE B ASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM 3RD PARTY BY THE A.O. WIT HOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THEREBY NOT AFFORDING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 4. THAT ADDITION CONFIRMED OF RS.22,86,730/- BE DE LETED. I.T.A. NO.640(ASR)/2004 - ASSTT. YEAR: 1998-99:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,76,962/- ON SALE O F VEHICLES AND RS.90,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SPARE PARTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COUR SE OF BUSINESS AND DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT AND HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE A.O. 8 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.23,66,912/- ON THE B ASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM 3RD PARTY BY THE A.O. WIT HOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THEREBY NOT AFFORDING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 4. THAT ADDITION CONFIRMED OF RS.23,66,912/- BE DE LETED. I.T.A. NO.641(ASR)/2004 - ASSTT. YEAR: 1999-2000:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,13,455/- ON SALE O F VEHICLES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE RE GULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT AND HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE A.O. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,13,439/- ON THE B ASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM 3RD PARTY BY THE A.O. WIT HOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AND THEREBY NOT AFFORDING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 4. THAT ADDITION CONFIRMED OF RS.19,13,499/- BE DE LETED. 12. BRIEFLY FACTS, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ARE THAT THE FACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AR E IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ALL THE OTHER YEARS I.E. 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 19 99-2000. THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 FROM THE A.O.S ORDER ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFY AS UNDER:- 4. THERE WAS AN INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF T HE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE SA LES OF VEHICLES AND OTHER PRODUCTS OF MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED. CONSE QUENT TO WHICH INTENSIVE ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE INT ELLIGENCE WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. 5. IN THIS CASE HEAVY PENALTIES HAD BEEN LEVIED BY THE SALES TAX 9 AUTHORITIES WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SALES OF PAR E PARTS, WHICH THE COMPANY CLAIMED TO BE R.D. SALES, WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THESE TYPE OF SALES WERE MADE TO OTHER REGISTERED D EALERS, WHO FURTHER SOLD THE SAME TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. NO SALES -TAX WAS LEVIABLE ON THESE SALES AND ONLY A CERTIFICATE TO THIS EFFEC T WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE CERTIFICATES WERE DEPOSITED BY T HE SELLER WITH THE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE PERIODIC RETURN S FILED. 6. IT WAS FOUND BY THE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES THAT ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF SALES-TAX ON THE S ALE OF SPARE PARTS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- SR. NO. NAME OF THE PURCHASING DEALER R.C. NO. 1. M/S.NATIONAL MOTORS, LUDHIANA. 50328312 2. M/S.YASH AUTO CENTRE, BARNALA 68257611 3. M/S.BEHAL MOTORS, FAZILKA. 75627610 4. M/S.GANDHI FARM FUEL COMPLEX, ABOHAR 75311714 5. M/S.JINDAL MOTORS, LUDHIANA 50863110 6. MARUTI CENTRE, MOGA 80675110 7. M/S.TRIVENI MOTORS, MOGA. 81138112 8. M/S.BHAGWATI MOTORS, MOGA 80864115 9. M/S.FARIDKOT SERVICE STATION, FARIDKOT 80632313 10. M/S.D.S. MOTORS, MOGA 81131812 11. M/S.MARUTI AUTO CENTRE, MANSA. 92679819 7. THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIE S REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER HAD ANY TRANSA CTION WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONCERNS AND THE CERTIFICATES SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSSESSEE COMPANY, PURPORTED TO BE ISSUED BY THESE CONCERNS, WERE FAKE. ACCORDINGLY, HEAVY PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES. 8. IN THE MEANTIME, INFORMATION REGARDING SALES OF VEH ICLES AND OTHER PRODUCTS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY MARUTI UD YOG LIMITED, GURGAON WAS CALLED FOR. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FR OM MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED REFLECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD HEAVILY UNDERSTATED THE SALE OF VEHICLES & OTHER PRODUCTS O F MUL. M/S.PANCHVATI MOTORS LTD., MANSA ROAD, BATHINDA, A. Y. 1996-97. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAD UNDERSTATED THE INCOME UNDER THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITI ES:- 1. SALE OF VEHICLES. 10 2. SALE OF SPARE PARTS AND LUBRICANTS 3. SERVICE CHARGES OF VEHICLES REPAIRED. AFTER CALCULATING THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS UNDER ALM OST ALL THE ABOVE HEADS, A NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 10-2-2004 ALONG WI TH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWING UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE ABOVE HEADS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR FILING OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE 20-2-2004 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- SINCE NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT ISSUED ON 12-3-2003, THEREFORE WITH REFER ENCE TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILE BY YOU AND INFORMATION OBTAINE D FROM M/S.MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED, SALES- TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHER REGISTERED DEALERS, THE FOLLOWING DIFFERENCES IN SA LES OF VEHICLES, SALES OF SPARE PARTS AND LUBRICANTS, SERVICE CHARGE OF VEHICLES REPAIR AND NON PAYMENT OF SALES TAX HAVE BEEN NOTIC ED: A) UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN SALE OF VEHICLES: THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED REVEALED THAT THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE AS PER SAL ES SHOWN BY THE ABOVE CONCERN AND SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . THIS SHOWS THAT SALES OF VEHICLES HAVE NOT BEEN ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREBY RESULTING IN NON PAYMENT OF SALES- TAX ALSO. IF THE PROFIT MARGIN AS APPLIED BY THE S IMILAR CONCERN IN ITS ACCOUNT BOOKS BE APPLIED IN YOUR CON CERN AND AFTER ADDING THE SALE TAX COLLECTED FROM THE CUSTO MERS NOT PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOM E ON THIS ACCOUNT COME TO RS.1,25.344/-. THE DETAILS OF WHIC H ARE ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE A-1. B) UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN SALE OF SPARE PARTS: M/S. MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED HAS INFORMED THAT IT HAD SOLD SPARE PARTS TO YOUR COMPANY AT RS.66,79,662/- WHERE AS YOUR COMPANY HA SHOWN ONLY SALE OF THE SAME AT RS.49,39, 800/-. THUS, THERE IS SUPPRESSION OF SALES ON THIS ACCOUNT AT RS.17,39,862/-. AS PER INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM O THER SIMILAR CONCERN, THE MARGIN OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SP ARES IS 15%. THE SALE TAX @ 8.8% WAS COLLECTED BY YOU AND N OT PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT RESULTING IN NET PROFIT RATE TO 23.8%. HENCE, UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT UNDER TH IS HEAD IS ESTIMATED AT RS.4,14,087/-. 11 B)(II) EVASION OF SALE TAX ON BOGUS RD SALES: DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96, BOGUS RD SALES O F SPARE PARTS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE COMPANY AT RS.20,89,534 /- ON WHICH SALES TAX @ 8.8% HAS BEEN COLLECTED BUT NOT DEPOSITED, HOWEVER, THE NORMAL PROFIT FROM THESE SA LES HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, THE SALE TAX @ 8.8%EVADED WILL ALSO CONSTITUTED THE UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF THE COMPANY WHICH COMES TO RS.1,83,800/-. (C) UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN SERVICING OF VEHICLES: SINCE, YOUR COMPANY HAS SOLD VARIOUS VEHICLES IN A LARGE QUANTITY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO UNVERIFIED/BOGUS SALE OF SPARE PARTS, THE FIGURES O F WHICH ARE NUMERATED AS UNDER: WORKSHOP SALARY SERVICE CHARGES UNVERIFIED/BOGUS ESTIMATE EXPENSES. DECLARED SALE OF SPARE PARTS UNDIS -CLOSED SERVICE CHARGES 2,37,288 1,17,316 38,29,396 5,74,409 THUS, THE ESTIMATED UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM SERVICE CHARGES IS COMPUTED AT RS.5,74,409/-. THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS CALCULATED ABOVE AT RS.12,97,720/- IS INTENDED TO BE ADDED TO YOUR RETU RNED INCOME. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE FILE YOUR OBJECTIONS, I F ANY TO THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS. IF YOU FAILED TO FILE ANY VALI D OBJECTION ON OR BEFORE 20-2-2004 IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT YOU HAVE N OTHING TO SAY IN THE ABOVE PROPOSED ADDITION. YOUR CASE STANDS FIX ED FOR 20-2-2004 FOR WHICH NOTICE U/S.142(1) IS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM M/S. MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED, SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHER REGISTERED DEALERS. A COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM M/S. MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED HAS BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27-2-2004 ON WHICH DATE SHRI P.K. SINGLA 12 ADVOCATE ALONGTWITH SHRI ANIL MITTAL M.D. ATTENDED AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER:- IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF LAST HEARING, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS SUPPLIED COPIES OF ACCOUNT M/S. MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED, BUT THE PHOTO COPIES SUPPLIED ARE UNSIGNED WITHOUT ANY AUTHENTICATION AND NOT SHOWING THE NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE OR RECEIPT ETC. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO EXPLAIN HIS CA SE ON THE BASIS OF THIS INCOMPLETE INFORMATION BECAUSE AS PER OUR RECORDS NO SUCH GOODS HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S. MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED OR ANY PAYMENT MADE. NECESSARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH OTHER R ELEVANT RECORDS OF THE COMPANY IS BEING PRODUCED FOR VERIFI CATION. IT IS, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE PERSON FROM WH OM THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN COLLECTED MAY KINDLY BE CALLED FOR ALONGWITH HIS RECORDS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION AND FUR THER VERIFICATION. IN THE ABOVE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STATED THA T THE COMPANY HAS NOT PURCHASED GOODS FROM M/S. MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED AS MENTIONED IN THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE MUL AND NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THERETO. MEANWHILE THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY FILED RETURN OF INCOME 23.2.2004 IN RESPONS E TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE CASE WAS FINALL Y FIXED FOR 12.3.2004 ON WHICH DATE SH. P.K, SINGLA, ADVOCATE A TTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FILED NOTHING DEFENDING THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SINCE THE LIMITATION I S INVOLVED IN THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEES R EQUEST FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM INFORMATION HA VE BEEN COLLECTED, CANNOT BE ACCEDED TO. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOO K VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND PROVISIONS O F SECTION 145(2) OF THE INCOME TAX AC, 1961 ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS C ASE. THE SAME ARE APPLIED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 12. AS PER NOTICE DATED 10.2.2004 THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CALCULATED AT RS.12,97,720 /- WHICH IS TREATED AS CONCEALED INCOME FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCE EDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. AT, 1961 HAVE SEPARATELY BEEN INITIATED. 13 13. THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE PAGES 3 AND 4 OF HIS OR DER CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,344/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 996-97 AND WITH REGARD TO THE GROSS PROFIT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUST AINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 2.7% FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN HIS ORD ER AND ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION. THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL OTHER YEARS EXCEPT THE QUANTUM IS DIFFERENT IN ALL THE YEARS WAS POINTED OUT BY THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 14. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE INFORMATION PERTAINS TO THE IMPUGNED YEAR OR ANY OT HER YEAR. THE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED WE RE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE A.O. HAD PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS. THE INFORMATION IS UNSIGNED, PHOTOCOPY IS NOT AUTHENTICATED. SECONDLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVI TED OUT ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE VAT TRIBUNAL OF PUNJAB IN THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NOS.590 & 591 OF 2004-05 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98 DATED 22-8-2006 IN WHICH THE FACTS AVAILABL E IN THE ORDER (PB 62- 63) WEREREAD OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE. THE FACTS WERE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HAD PROCEEDED TO IN ITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF MAKING ADDITIONS. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION, THE DISPUTE AROSE IN VAT DEPARTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE VAT TRIBUNAL, WHO REMANDE D THE MATTER TO THE DETC(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. ON REMAND, THE DETC(A) DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS THROUGH ORDERS BOTH DATED 25-10-2001 AND SE T ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND REMANDED THE MATTER BA CK TO THAT AUTHORITY, AFTER OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY PROOF ON THE FILE TO PROVE 14 AS TO WHETHER THE GOODS ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS RD SALES TO 11 REGISTERED DEALERS, HAD BEEN ACTUALLY IMPORTED AND THEREAFTER SOLD IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB. WHILE REMANDING, THE DETC(A) ACCORDINGLY S PECIALLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, TO ESTABLISH THESE FACTS B EFORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENTS. AFTER REMAND, NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN COL LECTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GOODS SHO WN AS SALES TO 11 REGISTERED DEALERS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WERE AC TUALLY IMPORTED IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND THEN WERE ALSO SOLD WITHIN THE STATE OF PUNJAB DURING THE DISPUTED ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF S UCH EVIDENCE, NO INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE SIMPLE FIGURES/BI LLS SUPPLIED BY THE MARUTI COMPANY, BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS. THER EFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE DETC(A) WERE CONFIRMED AND THE REASSESSMENT ORD ERS IN APPEALS COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE DETC(A) WERE QUASHED BY THE VAT TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22-8 -2006. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARGUED ON THE FOUNDATION OF WHICH THE DISPUTE AROSE HAD VANISHED, THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE A.O. THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD ALSO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R., SHRI TARSE M LAL, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, ARGUED AT THE OUTSET THAT THERE AR E VARIOUS LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE HAS TO COMPLETE THE A SSESSMENT. THE LIMITATION IS THAT THE TIME LEFT IN COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH THE A.O. TO ACCEDE TO THE REQUEST FOR CROSS-EXAMINATI ON OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE INFORMATION TAKEN HAD BEEN COLLECTED AND T HE SAME WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE A.O. AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE PHOTOCOPIES WERE UNSIGNED LEARNED CIT(A) WAS DUTY BOUND TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION SIGNED FROM M/S.MARUTI UDYOG LI MITED, THE SUPPLIER 15 OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE, THE INTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE LOOKED INTO SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SURRENDE R OF RS.60,00,000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHIRANJI LAL STEE L ROLLING MILLS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 84 ITR 222 AT PAGE 223 AND THE ORDE R OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS K.S. BHATIA, REPORTED IN 269 ITR PAGE 557 AT 577 ARE ON DIFFEREN T FACTS AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND TO SHOW THE MALAFIDE OF THE A.O. AND, THEREFORE, THE M ALAFIDE OF THE A.O. IS NOT THE ESTABLISHED. AT PAGE 64 BEING THE ORDER O F THE VAT TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED A.R. ARGUED THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BEEN THAT THE ENTIRE SUPPLY OF THE SPARE PARTS BY MARUTI COMP ANY WAS NEVER BROUGHT/IMPORTED IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND WHATEVE R GOODS WERE BROUGHT IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB HAD BEEN REFLECTED I N THE ACTUAL GOODS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD MADE THE CONFESS ION THAT WHATEVER GOODS WERE BROUGHT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB HAD BEE N REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS BUT OUT OF THE ENTIRE SUPPLY OF SPARE PART S BY MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED, THERE IS A REASON THAT THE GOODS HAVE NOT BEEN EITHER BROUGHT IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND THEY HAVE BEEN SOLD WITHOUT BRINGING IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND THIS IS THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT. 16. AS REGARDS THE GROSS PROFIT, THE GROSS PROFIT I S WITH RESPECT TO THE VEHICLES AND NOT THAT OF THE SPARE PARTS, WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGE 4 AND THEREFORE, HE IS NOT J USTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 2.7%. THE ASSESSEE WA S CONFRONTED VIDE LETTER DATED 10-2-2004 AND, THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRONTED, SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTE D. THE LEARNED D.R., THEREFORE, PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 16 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WAS HAVING THE INF ORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING THE SALE OF PRODU CTS OF MARUTI UGYOG LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A MARUTI VEHICLE S SHOWROOM AT MANSA ROAD, BHATINDA, AS AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE AS SESSEE HAD UNDERSTATED THE SALES OF VEHICLES AND OTHER PRODUCT S OF MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION, THE A.O. GATH ERED THAT THE SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT HAD LEVIED HEAVY PENALTIES AND WHEN IT W AS DISCOVERED THAT THE SALE OF SPARE PARTS, WHICH THE COMPANY CLAIMED TO BE R.D. SALES WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THESE TYPES OF SALES WERE MADE TO OTHER REGISTERED DEALERS, WHO FURTHER SOLD THE SAME TO THEIR CUSTOME RS. IT WAS FOUND BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF SALES TAX ON THE SALE OF SPARE PARTS MADE TO 11 PAR TIES REFERRED AT PAGE 2 OF THE A.O.S ORDER. THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE S ALES-TAX AUTHORITIES REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER HAD ANY TRANSA CTION WITH THE ABOVE CONCERNS AN THE CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE COMPANY, PURPORTED TO BE ISSUED BY THE SAID CONCERNS, WERE FAKE. ACCO RDINGLY, HEAVY PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY T HE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. THE A.O. CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION F ROM THE MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED, GURGAON AND, THEREFORE, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD HEAVILY UNDERSTATED THE SALE OF VEHICLE S AND OTHER PRODUCTS OF MUL. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 10-2-2 004 ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RE FERRED HEREINABOVE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND POINTED OUT TO THE A.O., AS REFERRED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 4 , THAT PHOTOCOPIES SUPPLIED BY M/S.MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED ARE UNSIGNED W ITHOUT ANY AUTHENTICATION AND NOT SHOWING THE NATURE OF PAYMEN T MADE OR RECEIPT ETC. AND, THEREFORE, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO THE ASSESSE E COMPANY TO EXPLAIN HIS 17 CASE ON THE BASIS OF THIS INCOMPLETE INFORMATION BE CAUSE AS PER THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NO SUCH GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED OR A NY PAYMENT MADE. NECESSARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED THE A.O. FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PER SON FROM WHOM SUCH INFORMATION HAS BEEN COLLECTED FOR FURTHER VERIFICA TION. THE A.O. AT PAGE 5 DID NOT ACCEDE TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE LIMITATION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS COMPLETED BY THE A.O. ON 17-3 -2004. 18. THE FINDINGS OF THE VAT TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 22 -8-2006 HAVE BEEN PERUSED BY US AND THE STAND OF THE LEARNED D.R . THAT AT PB 64 BEING THE FINDING OF THE VAT TRIBUNAL THE ENTIRE SUPPLY O F THE SPARE PARTS BY THE MARUTI U DYOG LIMITED WAS NEVER BROUGHT/IMPORTED IN THE STAT E OF PUNJAB HAD BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THOUGH IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ORDER OF THE DETC(A) WAS QU ASHED BY THE VAT TRIBUNAL ON 22-8-2006. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED A.R. THAT WHEN THE BASIS ON WHICH THE DISPUTE AROSE HAD VANISHED AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE, HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE OTHER ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE PERSON, WHO HAD SUPPLIED THE INFORMATION. SINCE THE ASSESS MENT WAS BEING TIME BARRED AND THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSE SSMENT ON 17-3-2004, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED A.R. AND THE FINDINGS O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH THE S UPPLIER, MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED, THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO CONTRADIC T THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT WILL BE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO DECIDE ANY ISSUE FI RSTLY WITHOUT PROVIDING THE AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND WIT HOUT CONFRONTING THE 18 SAID AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS AND CONSEQUENTLY WITHO UT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE WH EN SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR. THE A.O. CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AND GIVE THE PERVERSE FINDING WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPL E OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FA CTS OF THE CASE, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O., WHO W ILL PROVIDE THE AUTHENTICATED INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE O PPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS ACCORDINGL Y AFRESH BY PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. THUS ALL THE GROUND NOS.2 TO 4 IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL T HE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH APRIL, 2012 SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P.JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED; 18 TH APRIL,, 2012. /LALIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- (1) THE ASSESSEE: M/S. PANCHVATI MOTORS (P) LTD., BTD. (2) THE ACIT,CIRCLE I,BTD. (3)THE CIT,BTD. (4) THE CIT(A), BTD (5) THE SR. D.R., I.T.A.T., ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH