ITO 17(3)(1), MUMBAI V. ASHISH INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

ITA 773/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78749 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH KUMAR SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 773/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(1) M/S. ASHISH INDUSTRI ES ROOM NO. 621, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, MUMBAI 400012 VS. C/O. MR. KESHWANI, AMINABAD BLDG., PRICE ALI KHAN HOSPITAL COMPOUND, MAZAGAON MUMBAI 400010 PAN - AAAFA2177Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA DATE OF HEARING: 21.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.04.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2. REVENUE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2012, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI. THE IN COME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(1) THE APPELLANT HEREIN FILED THE APPEAL TO THE SUB-REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI, WHICH IN ITSELF SHOWS THAT HE IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH DESIGNATION AS SUB-REGISTRAR IN THE ITAT. HE FILED FORM NO. 36 IN TRIPLICATE AND DID NOT FILE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL AT ALL UNDER HIS SIGNATURE. HE MIGHT HAVE PROBABLY ASSUMED THAT THE AUTHORISATION MEMO OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WOULD ACT AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS SHOWS THE SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE REGISTRY, IN TURN, ADDED TO THE COM EDY BY MENTIONING IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CUM-NOTICE AS UNDER: - GROUNDS OF APPEAL: Y (YES) HOWEVER, IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ORDER SHEET IT WA S MENTIONED THAT VERIFICATION IS INCOMPLETE AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL AR E NOT FILED. ITA NO. 773/MUM/2013 M/S. ASHISH INDUSTRIES 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. DID NOT NOT ICE THAT NO GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED AND HE PROCEEDED TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT HE IS NOT AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH NEED TO BE SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AUTHORISATION MEMO AND MIGHT HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE AUTHORISATION MEMO IS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. DESPITE THESE DEFECTS AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK TO SUBMIT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECID ED BY THE ITAT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 200 2-03 (ITA NO. 1559/MUM/2012 DATED 04.04.2013). 5. THE LEARNED D.R. WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FAC T THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT . IN FACT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN, M/S. BOON INDUSTRIES, TO HOLD THAT THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO ON ESTIMATING THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY, PRODUCTI ON, SALE AND PROFIT THEREON IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. NO NEW FACTS WERE BROUG HT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE DEFECTS WERE NOT CURED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES W E DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST APRIL, 2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 21 ST APRIL, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 29, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 17, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.