M/s. Patson Industries, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

ITA 683/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4802 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ILA M PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDRESH SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 683/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S PATSON INDUSTRIES, 374, GIDC ESTATE, POR- RAMAN GAMDI, AT: POR, DIST-VADODARA- 391243 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1 (2)(2), VADODARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AADFP0353Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHANDRESH SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ILA M. PARMAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 17 -10-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-10-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, VADODARA DATED 12.01.2017 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-1 0. THE ASSESSEE MAIN ITA NO. 683/ AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 2 CONTENTION WAS THAT AS HE FILED BELATEDLY APPEAL BY 93 DAYS. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMPUGN ED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE M/S PATSORT INDUSTRIES MADE PURCHASES FROM SMT NAIN UDEVI A PRAJAPATI (PROP, M/S. BRAHMANI TRADING CO.). THUS, ASSESSEE'S INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S, BRAHMANI TRADING CO, HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT.' 3. VIDE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ISSUED ON 02/02/2015, THE F ACT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WAS APPRISED TO THE ASSESSES THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SMT NAINUDEVI A PRAJAPATI (PROP. M/S. BRAHMANI TRADING CO., 492, GIDC, MAKARPURA, NEAR HIMALAYA MACHINERY, BARODA- 390010) - PAN: ALXPPS917H, IT IS NOTICED THAT DURING THE F.Y. 2008-09 SHE NEIT HER PURCHASED ANY MATERIAL FROM SUPPLIERS NOR MADE ACTUAL SALES TO CUSTOMERS B UT PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION BILLS. ACCOMMODATION SALES BILLS WERE PROVIDED TO CUSTOMERS AGAINST A/C PAYEE CHEQUE & THE AMOUNT RETURNED BACK TO THE CUSTOMERS BY BEARER CHEQUES OR CASH. IN VIEW OF THIS PLEASE EXPL AIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM SMT NAINUDEVI A PRAJAPATI (PROP . M/S. BRAHMANI TRADING CO.) 4. THEREAFTER NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O., ASSESSEE REPLIED BUT SAME WAS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LD. A.O. AND HE MADE ADDITIO N OF RS. 16,47,640/-. 5. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), APPELLANT FILED APPEAL DELAYED B Y 93 DAYS. APPELLANT CONTENTION IS THAT PARTNER OF THE FIRM MET WITH AN ACCIDENT; THEREFORE, APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED ON TIME. BUT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE PLEA OF APPELLANT AND WITHOUT DECIDING THE MATTER ON MERIT. LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE TAKING A LENIENT VIEW. WE ARE OF THE ITA NO. 683/ AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 3 VIEW THAT APPELLANT CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERIT . THUS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE LD., CIT(A) TO DECIDE MATTER AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23- 10- 2018 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 23/10/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD