Ms Ram Nath Dhir & Sons, Kapurthala V. The Income-tax Officer, Kapurthala

ITA 752/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9749 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y K SUD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 752/ASR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN : AADFR1549L M/S SHRI RAM NATH DHEER & SONS, CIRCULAR ROAD, SULTANPUR LODHI, DIST. KAPURTHALA. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD II, KAPURTHALA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. Y.K. SUD RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL DATE OF HEARING: 04.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.06.2015 ORDER PER A.D.JAIN (JM): IN THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 CONTENDING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,72,605/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 4,3 5,294/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF YIELD OF RICE . 2. THE ASSESSEE FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM RUNNING OF A RICE SHELLER. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,35,294/- ON ACCOUNT OF SU PPRESSION OF YIELD OF I.T.A. NO. 752/ASR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2 RICE. IT WAS HELD THAT ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES GOT THEIR PADDY MILLED FROM RICE SHELLER OWNER DURING THE YEAR, IT TAKES YIELD OF RICE AT 67% OF THE TOTAL PADDY GIVEN FOR MILLING ON JOB WORK BASIS AND THERE WAS NO REASON OF LESSER YIELD OF RICE IN RESPECT OF OWN PADDY MILLED BY THE ASSESSE FIRM, ESPECIALLY WHEN PADDY HAD BEEN PROCURED FROM THE SAME MANDI / GRAIN MARKET IN THE SAME SEASON AND MILLING WAS DONE IN THE SAME SHELLE R. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO, OBSERVING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PADDY PURCHASED BY IT WAS OF INFE RIOR QUALITY, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT TO SUPPORT ITS SUBMIS SION THAT BY PURCHASING PADDY OF INFERIOR QUALITY, THE ASSESSEE SAVING IN TERMS OF LESSER PURCHASED PRICE WAS MORE THAN THE LOSS SUFFERED BY IT BECAUSE OF LESSER RICE YIELD, THE ASSESSEE HAD CITED THE SPECIAL BENCH DEC ISION OF THE AMRITSAR TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHANKAR RICE CO. VS. ITO, (2000) 72 ITD 139(ASR) (SB). THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THIS DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER . 4. THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE PADDY PU RCHASED WAS OF INFERIOR QUALITY, IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LD. CI T(A) THAT AS ON THE DATE I.T.A. NO. 752/ASR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 3 OF THE PURCHASE OF PADDY BY THE ASSESSEE, THE VALUE THEREOF WAS MORE THAN THAT OF THE PADDY AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET. NOW, UND ENIABLY, MARKET PRICE CAN NEVER BE STATIC. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS WRON GLY ALSO NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,72,605/- HAS WRONGLY BEEN SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. THIS ADDITION IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 /06/2015. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ( A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 12.06.2015 AG COPY TO: 1.THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR