ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Technical Stampings Automotive Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 68/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6517 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 68/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(2), CHENNAI. V. M/S. TECHNICAL STAMPINGS AUTOMOTIVE LTD., (FORMERLY JBM SUNGWOO LTD.), PLOT NO. G-16, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL PARK, IRUNGATTUKOTTAI, SRIPERUMBUDUR TALUK, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. PIN : 602 105. (PAN : AAACJ2661H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-III, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 762/08-09/A-II I DATED 29-10-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. I.T.A. NO.68/MDS/2011 2 2. SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF ` 30,08,857/- AND ` 71,81,922/-, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN STOCK, BY TA KING INTO ACCOUNT EVIDENCES SUCH AS STORES LEDGER, ETC. PRO DUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AN OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAI LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY WHETHER THE SHORTAGE OF ST OCK IS DUE TO SUPPRESSION OF SALE OR DUE TO ANY OTHER REASON , THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FOUND DISCREPANCIES IN REGARD TO THE STOCK AND SPARES AS ALSO MACHINERY SPARES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY AN ADDITION I.T.A. NO.68/MDS/2011 3 OF ` 30,08,857/- TOWARDS EXCESS OF STOCK WAS MADE AND A N ADDITION OF ` 71,81,922/- TOWARDS SHORTAGE IN REGARD TO THE MACHI NERY SPARES WAS DISALLOWED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A ) THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED COPIES OF THE STORES LEDGER, ANNUAL REPORT, AUDITOR S REPORT ETC. WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND H AD DELETED THE ADDITION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AS THE MAIN REASON GIVE N BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION WAS THAT THE ADDITIONS REPRES ENTED A DOUBLE ADDITION WHICH WAS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS BEING RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT RECORDS BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN REGARD TO THE EXCESS STOCK AS ALSO THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE SHORTAGE OF MACHINERY SPARES, THE SAME HAVING BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING NOT ASKED FOR A REMAND REPORT , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS I.T.A. NO.68/MDS/2011 4 CASE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30/06/2 011. SD/- S D/- (N.S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE