ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh V. M/s Unipearl Alloys, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 662/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8247 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 662/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS M/S UNIPEARL ALLOYS, WARD 1, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AABFU3696F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.03.2017 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PATIALA DATED 11.03.2 016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,37,33,111/- TO THE EXTENT OF RS.48,07,511/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING WITHOUT ANY BASIS TH E TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION TO HALF OF THAT ESTIMATED BY THE AO ON CONSIDERATIONS LIKE CREDIT P URCHASE/SALE, WHICH 2 ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR ADDITION U/S 69/69B, IGNORING THE FACT BASED COMPUTATION OF REASONABLE HOLDING PERIOD COMPUTED B Y THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE GP RATE AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WHEN THE REJECTION OF BOOKS WERE ALREADY CONFIRMED BY THE LD . CIT(A) IN THE SAME ORDER. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE IN DEPARTMENTAL APPE AL WAS INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 511/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. HE HAS FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECID ED ALONGWITH GROUP APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2017 IN THE CASES TITLED ITO VS MODI OIL & GENERAL MILLS IN ITA 149/2016 AND THE MATTER IN ISSUE HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE INTERNAL GUIDELINES ISSUED BY PR.CIT. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 12-13 IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER : 12. IN THE REMAINING CROSS APPEALS, THE ISSUES ARE SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CROSS APPEALS OF M/S MODI OIL & GENERAL MILLS (SUPRA). IN SOME OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, SOME OTHER SMALL GROUNDS HAVE ALSO BEEN RAISED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PRESSED BY LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S MODI OIL &GENERAL MILLS (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND 3 RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3)/144, UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS, UNACCOUNTED PROFIT AND UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OUT OF UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION WITH REFERENCE TO CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY UNITS PER METRIC TON PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF THE INTERNAL GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE LD. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES AND ASSESSEES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ANY CONTENTION BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE CROSS APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INADVERTENTLY THIS FACT COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF EARL IER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RESTORING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE, THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND MATTER IN ISSUE IS RE STORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS IS DIRECTED IN APPEAL OF 4 THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 511/2016 DATED 14.02.2017 WHERE BY GROUP APPEALS ON IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVE BEEN DECIDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES ISSUED IN THE GROUP CASES OF M/S MODI OIL & GENERAL MILLS ETC. DATED 14.02.2017 ( INCLUDING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE). 5. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST MARCH, 2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD