ACIT, CHENNAI V. Shri Vimal Bhogilal Shah, CHENNAI

ITA 82/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 8221714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR STAND ING
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.82(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE XV, CHENNAI. VS. SHRI VIMAL BHOGILAL SHAH, NO.200/289, MOWBRAYS RD., ALWARPET, CHENNAI-18. PAN AANPS3116Q. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JR.S TANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE - - ITA NO.82 OF 2011 2 ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-XI I AT CHENNAI DATED 29-10-2010 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSE SSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` .33,33,998/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS GROSS PROFIT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENU E THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD FURNISHED DIFFERENT VALUES TOW ARDS CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS, WHICH CRUCIAL FACT HAS NOT BEEN C ONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, NOBO DY WAS PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER EX P ARTE, QUA, THE ASSESSEE. SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, THE LEARNED S TANDING COUNSEL APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOT CRITICALLY EXAMINED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS FIGURES FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM TIME TO TIME. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED CERTAIN TECHNICAL DETAILS IN THE COURSE - - ITA NO.82 OF 2011 3 OF HEARING OF THE FIRST APPEAL. WE ARE AFRAID THAT THESE MATERIALS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THIS MATTER IS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE THE FILE IS REMITTED BACK TO HIM. TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND TO VERIFY ALL THE EVIDE NCES AND MATERIALS, IF ANY, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RE-EXA MINE THE CASE OF ADDITION IN LAWFUL MANNER. 5. IN RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 8 TH AUGUST, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT( A)/DR/GF.