Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0068 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
03-03-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
12-06-2019
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES, B JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2015-16 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD. VILLAGE POST- PATAN, TEHSIL- KISHANGARH, DISTRICT- AJMER CUKE VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAGCA9590E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. SIDDHARTH RANKA & SH. SAURAV HARSH (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SH. B. K. GUPTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/02/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/03/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED U/S 263 OF TH E ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GROSSLY ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOU ND TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 2 1.1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GROSSLY ER RED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT A ND IN HOLDING THAT 'THE LD. AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WITH NON- APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY' WHI CH IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED, BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. 1.2. THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSE D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER APPRECIATING ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS A ND EVIDENCES WHICH WAS JUST AND PROPER THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS N OR IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 1.3. THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 263 AND IN PASSING THE I MPUGNED ORDER ON ASSUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMI SES WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. 1.4. THAT THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 115BBE READ WITH SECTION 69A OF THE ACT ON RS. 1,77,95,859/- REFLECTING TURNOVER SU RRENDERED BEFORE THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND IN GRANTI NG BENEFIT OF BROUGHT FORWARD OF LOSSES/DEPRECIATION. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX U/S. ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 3 263 OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THUS DES ERVES TO BE SET- ASIDE AND QUASHED. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BY 18 DAYS. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY IS HEREB Y CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR NECESSARY ADJUDICATION. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR TAKEN US THROUGH THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEALS IN MANUFACTURE & TRA DING OF IRON INGOTS FOR PAST SEVERAL YEARS. A SEARCH AT THE FAC TORY PREMISES OF COMPANY TOOK PLACE ON 16.01.2015 BY THE CENTRAL EXC ISE COMMISSIONERATE (ANTI EVASION BRANCH, JAIPUR) AND S H. KRISHAN JINDAL, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ADMITTED: (1) QUANTITY OF 177.609 MT INGOTS VALUED AT RS. 53,10, 480/- WAS FOUND SHORT; (2) FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON EXAMINATION KANTA SLIP AND KACCHA RECORD, RECOVERED FROM RESIDENCE OF DIRE CTOR, HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT A QUANTITY OF 562.940 MT. VALUED AT RS. 1,77,95,858/- WAS REMOVED WITHOUT ENTERING THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 ON 29.09.2015 AT THE TOTA L INCOME OF RS. NIL AND CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,93,71,020/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE A SSESSEE INCLUDED THE CASH SALES OF RS. 53,10,480/- IN ITS S ALES ACCOUNTS ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 4 TOWARDS SHORTAGE OF STOCK. FURTHERMORE, IN THE COMP UTATION OF INCOME & RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, I T OFFERED THE INCOME ON SUCH TRANSACTION AT RS. 5,53,095/- BEING G.P. OF 3.11% ON TURNOVER OF RS. 1,77,95,856/-. THE INCOME OF RS. 5,53,095/- EARNED FROM OUT OF BOOKS SALE ON ESTIMAT ED G.P BASIS IS CLEARLY SHOWN IN ONLINE E-RETURN AT PAGE NO. 10 IN HEAD OTHER INFORMATION COLUMN 5(D) AS ANY OTHER ITEM OF INCOME AND SAME IS AGAIN REPEATED AT PAGE NO. 17 IN HEAD COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF PROFESSION COLUMN NO 24 WITH NARRA TION - 'ANY OTHER INCOME NOT INCLUDED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T'. 3. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY TH ROUGH CASS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD ALSO VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ETC. FURTHERMO RE, THE SAID INCOME OF RS. 5,53,095/- IS VERY WELL SHOWN IN COMP UTATION OF INCOME PLACED BEFORE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY N ARRATION 'INCOME ESTIMATED ON TURNOVER SURRENDERED IN EXCISE SURVEY BEING GP OF 3.11% ON RS. 1,77,95,858/- = 5,53,095/-. AS F AR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT HAS DISCLOSED AND INCORPO RATED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED B Y IT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GONE THROUGH THE INCOME-TAX R ETURN AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN DETAIL AND HAS CROSS-CHECK ED THE SAME TO HIS SATISFACTION. HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE GROS S-PROFIT RATE ON GOOD SOLD WITHOUT INVOICES IS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS, ETC. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 06.12.2017 U/S 143(3) AFTER COMPLETE VERIFICATION A ND DETAILED SCRUTINY. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE CERTAI N DISALLOWANCES ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 5 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,30,840/- AGAINST WHICH NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER ALLOWED CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,92 ,40,180/-. 4. THAT THEREAFTER THE LD. PCIT ISSUED A NOTICE DATED 29.11.2018 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ABOVE TWO ASPECTS RE LATING TO SURRENDER MADE BEFORE THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIE S DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THUS THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 06.12.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST OF THE REVENUE (COPY EN CLOSED). 5. DETAILED REPLY DATED 05.03.2019 WAS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN CONSEQUENCE OF AFORE-SAID NOTICE U/S. 2 63 OF THE ACT ALONGWITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. 6. THE LD. PCIT VIDE HER IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.03.20 19 WAS SATISFIED ABOUT TAX TREATMENT OF (1) QUANTITY OF 17 7.609 MT INGOTS VALUED AT RS. 53.10 LACS SOLD/CLEARED WITHOUT PAYME NT OF EXCISE DUTY AND WITHOUT RAISING ANY CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICE . HOWEVER, THE LD. PCIT WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT TAX TREATMENT OF Q UANTITY OF 562.940 MT. VALUED AT RS. 1,77,95,858/-. 4. IN THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHICH STOOD DULY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE FORE, THE OBSERVATIONS BY THE LD. PR. CIT THAT NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE TH E NECESSARY INQUIRY AND HAS EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE DU LY AUDITED AND ALL ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 6 THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME AS WELL AS IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO STRAIGHT JACKET FORMULA OR PARAMETER TO MAKE INQUIRY IN THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE AO SHOULD FRAME THE AS SESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND IN LI GHT OF THE RELEVANT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. PR. CIT HAS FAILED TO STATE W HAT CORRECT PROVISION OF LAW HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED OR APPLIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.03.2019, THE LD. PCIT HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R IT WAS HELD THAT THE UNDISCLOSED STOCK OF RS. 1,77,95,858/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED U/S 69A OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT AND THE BENEFIT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION/LOSS WERE NOT TO BE GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON T HE DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV SINGH V. PCIT (ITA NO. 1781/DEL/2016 DATED 24.04.2019). 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 69A, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE SAME CAN BE INVOK ED IN CASE OF ANY (1) MONEY, (2) BULLION, (3) JEWELLERY OR (4) OTHER VALU ABLE ARTICLE. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAD NEITHER FOUND ANY (1) MONEY, (2) BULLION, (3) JEWELLERY OR (4) OTHER VALU ABLE ARTICLE, IT ONLY FOUND KACHI PARCHIES HAVING REFERENCE TO UNDISCLOSED SALE S. NO PHYSICAL GOODS WERE FOUND BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE D EPARTMENT. HENCE, THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 69A IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE INSTANT BACKDROP AND FACTS. ON THE CONTRARY THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY O FFERED THE GROSS PROFIT ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 7 EARNED ON OUT OF BOOKS SALE AS ITS INCOME. IT IS A PPARENT THAT THE LD PCIT HAS ASSUMED THE UNDISCLOSED SALES AS UNDISCLOSED ST OCK FOUND BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES WHEREAS IT IS NOT SO. ON LY LOOSE SLIPS OF UNACCOUNTED SALE OF RS. 1,77,95,856/- WAS FOUND BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF RS. 1,77,95,85 6/- WAS NOT FOUND. THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. PCIT IN PARA 2& 7 ARE CONTRADICTORY. INITIALLY REFERENCE IS TO CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GO ODS, THEREAFTER IT IS REFERRED AS UNEXPLAINED STOCK. 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME WAS OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME F OR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NO OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF TRADING AND MANUFACTURING OF MS INGOTS. FURTHERMORE, THE UNDETECTED TRANSACTIONS UNEARTHED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS BEING C ARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE SOME UNCON NECTED TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN RELATING TO MS INGOTS WERE FOUND BY THE OFFICIALS. IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JAIPUR BENCH DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF BAJARAGAN TRADERS V. ACIT (ITA NO. 137/JP/2013 DATED 17.03.2017) WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE RAJAS THAN HIGH COURT AS REPORTED IN PCIT VS BAJRANG TRADERS (2017) 11 TMI 3 88, JODHPUR BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF LOVISH SINGHAL V. ITO (ITA NOS. 142-146/JODH/2018 DATED 23.05.2018) AND IN CASE OF PAWAN KUMAR (HUF) VS. ITO (ITA NOS. 371-375/JODH/2018 DATED 10.05.2019). 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT BRO UGHT IN SECTION 115BBE(2) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE WORDS OR SET OFF OF ANY LOSS WERE INSERTED W.E.F 01.04.2017. THE SAID AMENDMENT HAS B EEN MADE W.E.F ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 AND THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF UNABSORBED ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 8 DEPRECIATION/LOSS HAS WRONGLY BEEN DIRECTED TO BE D ISALLOWED BY THE LD. PR. CIT. IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON JAIPUR BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF NAVJEEVAN TRADE & COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 8 TMI 665. 9. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GP RATIO WAS R IGHTLY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ENTIRE TURNOVER COULD NOT HAVE BEE N ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: DCIT V. PANNA CORPORATION (2014) 11 TMI 797 (GUJARA T) CIT V. HARIRAM BHAMBHANI (2015) 2 TMI 907 (BOMBAY) ITO V. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR JAIN (2016) 1 TMI 1190 SANVIRA HOLDINGS V. DCIT (2020) 5 TMI 139. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IN LIGHT OF THE A BOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT DESERVES T O BE SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. 10. IN HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT/DR TAKEN US THRO UGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE AS S TATED IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2. AS PER CERTAIN INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CO MMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ANTI EVASION BRANCH ), JAIPUR, IT IS SEEN THAT DURING SEARCH OF THE FACTORY PREMISES OF M/S ALOKIK STEEL PVT, LTD ON 16.01.2015, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS WERE RECOVERED. PHYSICAL STOCK VER IFICATION OF THE FINISHED GOODS WAS ALSO DONE IN THE PREMISES OF THE COMPANY AND SHORTAGE OF 177.609 MT IN FINISHED GOOD S I.E M.S. INGOTS WAS NOTICED. IN HIS STATEMENT, SH. KRISHAN J INDAL, ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 9 DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, ADMITTED THAT A QUANTITY O F 177.609 MT INGOTS VALUED AT RS.53.10 LAC WERE SOLD/CLEARED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AND WITHOUT RAISING ANY CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICE. SHRI JINDAL AFTER CALCULATING THE C ENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ON 177.609 MT 'MS INGOTS' REMOVED CLANDESTINEL Y, PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,56,375/- TOWARDS CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY . ON EXAMINATION OF RECORDS INCLUDING KANTA SLIP AND KACCHA RECORD, COVERED FROM THE RESIDENCE DURING TH E SEARCH DATED 16.01.2015, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT ON EARL IER OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO REMOVED CLANDESTIN ELY THEIR MANUFACTURED GOODS WITHOUT ISSUE OF INVOICE AND WIT HOUT PAYMENT OF DUTY. SHRI KRISHAN JINDAL AFTER HAVING S EEN THE RESUMED KACCHA RECORD AND A CHART OF CLANDESTINE RE MOVAL ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 21.01.2015 THAT A Q UANTITY OF 562.940 MT MANUFACTURED BY THEM WERE ALSO REMOVED WITHOUT ENTERING THE SAME IN THEIR RG-1 REGISTER AN D WITHOUT ISSUE OF INVOICES AND WITHOUT PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EX CISE DUTY. SHRI KRISHAN JINDAL, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AFTER CALCULATING THE DUTY LIABILITY OF RS.20,80,424/- ON THE SAID CL ANDESTINE REMOVAL OF 562.940 MT INGOTS SUBMITTED AN ON-LINE C HALLAN OF RS.10,30,000/- ON 21.01.2015. THUS THE COMPANY REMO VED' 740.549 MT OF 'MS INGOTS' WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF INVOI CES AND WITHOUT PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE. THIS AMOUNTED TO AN UNRECORDED TURNOVER OF ABOUT RS.1.77 CR. WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, RECORDS SHOW THAT THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN ANY MANNER BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER (A0). THE TAXABILITY OF THE SUM OF RS.1.77 CR. HAS NOT BE EN ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 10 EXAMINED BY THE A.O AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 6-12- 2017 IS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID FAC TS ON RECORD, A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.11.2018 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. PR. C IT HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A ROUTINE AND PERFUNCTORY MANNER WITHOUT VERIFICATION AND EXAMINA TION OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO EXCESS TURNOVER DETECTED BY EXCISE DEPA RTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,77,95,859/- AND OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO TH E RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. PR. CIT WHICH ARE CONTAINED AT PARAS 5 TO 9 OF HIS ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD CIT/DR HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: DANIEL MERCHANT PVT. LTD. AND ANR VS. ITO (SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 23976/2017 DATED 29.11.2017) VIRBHADRA SINGH (HUF) VS. PR. CIT (2017) 86 TAXMANN .COM 113(HP) CIT, NAGPUR VS. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. (2017) 85 TAXMANN.COM 10 (BOMBAY) CIT VS. BHAWAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA), UDAIPUR, (2017) 81 TAXMANN.COM 478 (RAJASTHAN) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 109 TAXMANN 66 (SC) KIRTIDEVI S. TEJWANI VS. PR. CIT-22, MUMBAI, (2020) 116 TAXMANN.COM 965 (MUMBAI-TRIB) ADDL.CIT VS. MUKUR CORPORATION, (1978) 111 ITR 312, GUJRAT CIT VS. ASSAM TEA HOUSE (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 93 (P UNJAB & HARYANA) ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 11 NAGAL GARMENT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2020) 1 13 TAXMANN.COM 4 (MADHYA PRADESH) PR. CIT, LUDHIANA VS. VENUS WOOLEN MILLS, LUDHIANA (2019) 105 TAXMANN.COM 287 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, WE REFER TO THE CONT ENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PR.CIT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BEYOND THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THUS, NO OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED BY THE LD PR CIT AS ONLY LOOSE SLIPS OF UNACCOUNTED SALES AND NOT ANY UNACCOUNTED STOCK WAS FOUND BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND SECONDLY, THE AMENDMENT TO S UB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 115BBE RELATING TO SET OFF OF LOSS IS EFFEC TIVE FROM A.Y 2017-18 AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. 13. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT SECTION 263 DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DETAILING SPECIFIC GROUN DS ON WHICH REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BEING PROPOSED AFFECTING INITIA TION OF EXERCISE OR TO REQUIRE COMMISSIONER TO CONFINE HIMSELF TO TERMS OF NOTICE EXCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF ANY OTHER ISSUE. AT THE SAME TIME , BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER RECORDS HIS FINDINGS ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND MATERIAL UNDER CONSIDERATION, HE IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE AND FAILURE TO GIVE SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WOULD RENDER THE REVISIONAL ORDER LEGALLY FRAGILE NOT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 12 JURISDICTION BUT ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THIS REGARD, USEFUL REFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS AMITABH BACHCHAN (2016) 384 ITR 200 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 9. UNDER THE ACT DIFFERENT SHADES OF POWER HAVE BE EN CONFERRED ON DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES TO DEAL WITH ORDERS OF ASSESS MENT PASSED BY THE PRIMARY AUTHORITY. WHILE SECTION 147 CONFERS POWER ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ITSELF TO PROCEED AGAINST INCOM E ESCAPING ASSESSMENT, SECTION 154 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS SUCH AU THORITY TO CORRECT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECOR D. THE POWER OF APPEAL AND REVISION IS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER XX OF T HE ACT WHICH INCLUDES SECTION 263 THAT CONFER SUO MOTU POWER OF REVISION IN THE LEARNED C.I.T. THE DIFFERENT SHADES OF POWER CONFER RED ON DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT HAS TO BE EXERCISED WITHI N THE AREAS SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED BY THE ACT AND THE EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER ONE PROVISION CANNOT TRENCH UPON THE POWERS AVAILAB LE UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT MU ST BE SPECIFICALLY NOTICED THAT AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, SO FAR AS THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER THE ACT IS TO REOPEN THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 AND/OR TO RE VISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE OF THE POWER/JURISDICTION UNDER THE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS O F THE ACT WOULD NATURALLY BE DIFFERENT. THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE TO DEAL WITH A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, MUST B E UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT SECTI ONS NOTICED ABOVE. WHILE DOING SO IT MUST ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT T HE LEGISLATURE HAD NOT VESTED IN THE REVENUE ANY SPECIFIC POWER TO QUE STION AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BY MEANS OF AN APPEAL. ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 13 10. REVERTING TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS THAT A SATISFACTION THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS THE BASIC PRE-CONDITION FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. BOTH ARE TWIN CONDITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE CONJOINTLY PRESENT. ONCE SUCH SATIS FACTION IS REACHED, JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE THE POWER WOULD B E AVAILABLE SUBJECT TO OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHICH IS IMPLICIT IN THE REQUIREMENT CAST BY THE SECTION TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE POSITION THAT THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT U NLIKE THE POWER OF REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE AC T, THE POWER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THE GIVING OF A NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE. IN FACT, SECTION 263 HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD NOT TO REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO BE SER VED ON THE ASSESSEE. RATHER, WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID P ROVISION IS AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TWO REQ UIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT; THE FIRST WOULD COMPREHEND A PRIOR NOTIC E DETAILING THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS ON WHICH REVISION OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER IS TENTATIVELY BEING PROPOSED. SUCH A NOTICE IS NOT RE QUIRED. WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 263, IS AN OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. FAILURE TO GIVE SUCH AN O PPORTUNITY WOULD RENDER THE REVISIONAL ORDER LEGALLY FRAGILE NOT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION BUT ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE ILLUSTRATI VELY MADE TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN GITA DEVI AGGARWAL V. CI T [1970] 76 ITR 496 AND IN CIT V. ELECTRO HOUSE [1971] 82 ITR 824 ( SC). PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE DECISION IN ELECTRO HOUSE (SUPRA) BEING IL LUMINATION OF THE ISSUE INDICATED ABOVE MAY BE USEFULLY REPRODUCED HE REUNDER: ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 14 'THIS SECTION UNLIKE SECTION 34 DOES NOT PRESCRIBE ANY NOTICE TO BE GIVEN. IT ONLY REQUIRES THE COMMISSIONER TO G IVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE SEC TION DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY NOTICE. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE BETWEEN SECTIONS 33-B AND 34. FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 34, THE NOTICE AS PRESCRIBED IN THAT SECTION IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT. BUT NO SUCH NOTICE IS CONTEMPL ATED BY SECTION 33-B. THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 33-B IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE FULFILME NT OF ANY CONDITION PRECEDENT. ALL THAT HE IS REQUIRED TO DO BEFORE REACHING HIS DECISION AND NOT BEFORE COMMENCING THE ENQUIRY, HE MUST GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD AND MAKE OR CAUSE TO MAKE SUCH ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECE SSARY. THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JURI SDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER. THEY PERTAIN TO THE REGION OF NATURAL JUSTICE. BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E MAY AFFECT THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER MADE BUT THAT DOES NOT AF FECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER. AT PRESENT WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ORDER MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER IS VITIATED BECAUSE OF THE CONTRAVENTI ON OF ANY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE SCOPE OF THESE APPEALS IS VERY NARROW. ALL THAT WE HAVE TO SEE IS WHETHER BEFORE ASSUMING JURISDICTION THE COMMISSIONER WAS REQUIRED TO ISSUE A NOTICE AND IF HE WAS SO REQUIRED WHAT THAT NOTICE SHOULD HAVE CONTAINED? OUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION HAS ALR EADY BEEN MADE CLEAR. IN OUR JUDGMENT NO NOTICE WAS REQU IRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE ASSUMING JURIS DICTION TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 33-B. THEREFORE THE QUESTI ON WHAT ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 15 THAT NOTICE SHOULD CONTAIN DOES NOT ARISE FOR CONSI DERATION. IT IS NOT NECESSARY NOR PROPER FOR US IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ENQUIRY TO BE HELD UNDER SECTI ON 33-B. THEREFORE, WE REFRAIN FROM SPELLING OUT WHAT PRINCI PLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SHOULD BE OBSERVED IN AN ENQUIRY UN DER SECTION 33-B. THIS COURT IN GITA DEVI AGGARWAL V. C IT, WEST BENGAL RULED THAT SECTION 33-B DOES NOT IN EXPRESS TERMS REQUIRE A NOTICE TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE CASE OF SECTION 34. SECTION 33-B MERELY REQUIRES THAT AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE AND THE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE APPLIED TO A PROCE EDING UNDER SECTION 33-B.' (PAGE 827-828). [NOTE: SECTION 33-B AND SECTION 34 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1922 CORRESPONDS TO SECTION 263 AND SECTION 147 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961] 11. IT MAY BE THAT IN A GIVEN CASE AND IN MOST CASE S IT IS SO DONE A NOTICE PROPOSING THE REVISIONAL EXERCISE IS GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE INDICATING THEREIN BROADLY OR EVEN SPECIFICALLY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE EXERCISE IS FELT NECESSARY. BUT THERE IS NOTHIN G IN THE SECTION (SECTION 263) TO RAISE THE SAID NOTICE TO THE STATU S OF A MANDATORY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AFFECTING THE INITIATION OF THE E XERCISE IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF OR TO REQUIRE THE C.I.T. TO CONFINE HIMSELF TO THE TERMS OF THE NOTICE AND FORECLOSING CONSIDERATION O F ANY OTHER ISSUE OR QUESTION OF FACT. THIS IS NOT THE PURPORT OF SEC TION 263. OF COURSE, THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT WHILE THE C.I. T. IS FREE TO EXERCISE HIS JURISDICTION ON CONSIDERATION OF ALL R ELEVANT FACTS, A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROVERT THE SAME AND TO EXPLAIN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 16 SURROUNDING SUCH FACTS, AS MAY BE CONSIDERED RELEVA NT BY THE ASSESSEE, MUST BE AFFORDED TO HIM BY THE C.I.T. PRI OR TO THE FINALIZATION OF THE DECISION. 14. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHAT IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED IS THAT FIRSTLY, ON APPRECIATION OF RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. PR. CIT SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE AND HE SHOULD RECORD HIS FINDINGS BRINGING OUT THE REAS ONING FOR ARRIVING AT SUCH A FINDING WHICH SHOULD BE DISCERNABLE FROM THE ORDER. SECONDLY, THE LD PR.CIT SHOULD AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE THUS, ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE BEFORE ARRIVING AT SUCH A FINDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS E RRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 15. FIRSTLY, WE REFER TO FINDINGS OF LD PR. CIT AT PARA 7 OF HER ORDER WHEREIN THE LD PR. CIT HAS STATED THAT AS PER LAW, THE ENTIRE UNEXPLAINED/EXCESS STOCK OF RS.1,77,95,858/- WAS RE QUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED U/S 69A AND BROUGHT TO TAX SEPARATELY U/ S 115BBE AT THE RATE OF 30% AND NO EXPENDITURE/ALLOWANCE WAS TO BE ALLOW ED TO BE SET OFF. THEREAFTER, AT PARA 8, SHE HAS STATED THAT .ON TH E ISSUE REGARDING TAXABILITY OF THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69A RE AD WITH SECTION 115BBE, THE A.O HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AT ALL. NO QUERY H AS BEEN RAISED. THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AT ALL. THE RELEVANT PR OVISIONS OF THE LAW HAVE NOT BEEN INVOKED BY THE A.O. WE FIND THAT TH E AFORESAID FINDINGS BY THE LD PR CIT AT PARA 7 & 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER R ELATES TO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN STOCK WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT T O TAX U/S 69A R/W SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER SUCH FINDINGS ARE BORNE OUT OF MATERIAL AVA ILBLE ON RECORDS THUS ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 17 RENDERING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS ERRONEOUS A ND WHETHER BEFORE ARRIVING AT SUCH A FINDING, AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REVISIONARY PROCE EDINGS. 16. IN THIS REGARD, IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE RELE VANT MATERIAL/INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE REFER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE LD PR. CIT AN D FIND THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE CONTEXT OF CERT AIN INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT, JAIPUR PURSUANT TO SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AND ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMA TION SO RECEIVED, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE ENTIRE SALES OF 740.549 MT OF MS INGOTS IS UNACCOUNTED SALES/TURNOVER AND WAS REQUIRED TO BE E XAMINED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH IS DISCERNABLE FROM THE SHOW-CAUSE WAS IN REL ATION TO UNACCOUNTED SALES/TURNOVER OF 740.549 MT OF MS INGOTS AMOUNTING TO RS 1,77,95,858/- AND WE FIND THAT WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT WERE CERTAIN KAN TA SLIPS AND KACCHA RECORDS WHICH SHOWS CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MANUFACT URED GOODS WITHOUT ISSUE OF INVOICE AND PAYMENT OF DUTY. EVEN IN STATE MENT OF SHRI KRISHAN JINDAL, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECORDED O N 21.01.2015, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT 562.940 MT OF MANUFACTURED BY THE COM PANY WAS REMOVED WITHOUT ENTERING THE SAME IN THE RG-1 REGISTER AND WITHOUT ISSUE OF INVOICES AND PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY. WE THE REFORE FIND THAT DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENT SO RECORDED TALKS ABOUT CLA NDESTINE REMOVAL OF MANUFACTURED GOODS WITHOUT ISSUE OF INVOICE AND PAY MENT OF DUTY AND IN OTHER WORDS, UNACCOUNTED AND OUT OF BOOKS SALES AND NOT ABOUT ANY STOCK OF GOODS WHICH IS NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS WHICH WAS FOUND AND CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. THOUGH ONE MAY ARGUE THAT UNACCOUNTED SALES AND UNDISCLOSED INVEST MENT IN STOCK WHICH ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 18 HAS ULTIMATELY BEEN SOLD ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER AND A PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN THAT WHERE UNACCOUNTED SALES ARE FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF EXCISE SEARCH, IT IS LIKELY THAT THERE IS UNDISCLOS ED INVESTMENT IN STOCK (WHICH HAS ULTIMATELY BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE) AN D THUS, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. TO OUR MIND, A PRESUMP TION HOWSOEVER STRONG CANNOT SUBSTITUTE AND TAKE THE ROLE OF CREDI BLE AND VERIFIABLE MATERIAL/EVIDENCE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS AND FOUNDAT ION OF FASTENING THE TAX LIABILITY IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MORE SO WHER E EACH OF THESE TRANSACTIONS CARRY DIFFERENT TAX LIABILITY. THUS, IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INVE STMENT IN STOCK, THE VERY INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A AND SE CTION 115BBE BY THE LD PR. CIT IS NOT BORNE OUT OF RECORDS AND THUS, THERE IS NO LEGAL AND JUSTIFIABLE BASIS TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS. FURTHER, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD AR THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 115BBE RELATING TO SE T OFF OF LOSS IS EFFECTIVE FROM A.Y 2017-18 AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD PR CIT IN THIS REGARD HA S NO LEGAL AND JUSTIFIABLE BASIS. 17. ADMITTEDLY, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE DATED 29.11.2018 TALKS ABOUT THE BRINGING TO TAX THE UNAC COUNTED SALES AND IT DOESNT TALK ABOUT ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN ST OCK WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, WE FIN D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS, NO FURTHER SHOW-CAUSE O R QUERY HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE LD PR CIT OR FOR THAT MATTER, ANY DIS CUSSIONS/DELIBERATIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 69A AND SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE DIRECT IONS AT PARA 7 & 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE CLEARLY WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE SUCH FINDINGS ARE R ECORDED BY THE LD PR ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 19 CIT, IT RENDERS SUCH FINDINGS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE DUE TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 18. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS OF THE LD PR CIT CONTAI NED AT PARA 7 & 8 OF HER ORDER ARE NOT BORNE OUT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD AND SECONDLY, THE SUCH FINDINGS HAVE BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUCH FINDIN GS ARE HEREBY SET-ASIDE AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE ORDER OF THE PR CIT STANDS MODIFIED. 19. NOW COMING BACK TO THE OTHER FINDINGS OF LD PR CIT, AT PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, SHE HAS STATED THAT AS PER THE STAT EMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS. 5,53,095/- ON TURNOVER SURRENDERED IN EXCISE SEARCH BEING GROSS P ROFIT OF 3.11% ON RS.1,77,95,858/- WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE STATEM ENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND NOT APPARENT OR SEPARATELY INDICATED IN THE AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNTS. THEREAFTER, AT PARA 9 OF THE ORDER, THE LD PR CIT HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO WITHOUT VERIFIC ATION AND EXAMINATION OF ISSUE RELATING TO EXCESS TURNOVER DETECTED BY TH E EXCISE DEPARTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS 1,77,95,859/-. 20. THESE FINDINGS ARE NO DOUBT IN CONTEXT OF UNDIS CLOSED SALES/TURNOVER BASIS MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF EXCISE SE ARCH AND WHICH IS ALSO SUBJECT MATTER OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ALLOWING ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH HAS INFACT BEEN AVAILED BY THE A SSESSEE BY RESPONDING TO THE SHOW-CAUSE VIDE ITS SUBMISSIONS DATED DATED 5.03.2019 AND THUS, AS FAR AS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY PROVIDED AND THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS FAR AS THESE FINDINGS ARE CONCERNED. ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 20 21. THE QUESTION THAT STILL LOOMS LARGE IS WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT OF 3.11% ON RS.1,77,95,858/- AND WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO, HOW THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO IS HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E BY THE LD PR CIT AS TO WHETHER RATE OF GROSS PROFIT SO DECLARED AND ACCEPT ED IS ERRONEOUS OR THE QUANTUM OF UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER SO DECLARED AND CON SIDERED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND THUS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. 22. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE CONTENTION ADV ANCED BY THE LD AR THAT GROSS PROFIT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE TURNOVER OF RS 1,77,95,859/- COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AD DED AND THEREFORE, WHERE THE GROSS PROFIT AND TURNOVER SO DECLARED HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY LD PR CIT, THERE IS NO BASIS TO ST ILL HOLD THAT THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THIS REGARD, AS WE HAVE HELD ABOVE, TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD PR CIT RELATES TO UNACCOUNTED TURNOVE R AND NOT UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN STOCK AND IN ABSENCE THEREOF, WE HAVE SET-ASIDE THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD PR CIT CONTAINED AT PA RA 7 & 8 OF HER ORDER, IT IS THEREFORE ONLY PROFITS EMBEDDED IN SUCH UNDISCLO SED TURNOVER OF RS 1,77,95,859/- WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX AND TO THIS EXTENT, WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION SO ADVANCED BY THE LD AR. IN THIS REGARD, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DCIT VS PANNA CORPORATION (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 9. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIE S AND HAVING PERUSED THE ORDERS UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHAT EMERGE S IS THAT THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE RESPONDENT - PARTNERSHIP FIRM RECEIVED ON MONEY OF RS. 62 LAKHS DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD FOR SALE OF THE FLATS, IS NOT SERIOUSLY IN D ISPUTE. THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 21 CONFIRMED SUCH FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT PERMIT THE REVENUE TO COLLECT THE TAX ON THE ENTIRE RECEIPT BELIEVING THE IT WAS ONLY THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPT WHICH CAN BE SUBJECTED TO TAX. 10. AS POINTED OUT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDEN T, THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. PRESID ENT INDUSTRIES, REPORTED IN (2002) 258 ITR 654 HAD TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. IN THE SAID CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, FROM THE EXCISE RECORDS FOUND, AN INFERENCE WAS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SALES ACCOUNTIN G TO RS. 29 LAKHS AND ODD HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE SUM O F THE SAID UNDISCLOSED SALES AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. SUCH ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ENT IRE SALES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ESTIMATED PROFITS EMBEDDED IN THE SALES FOR WHICH THE NET PROFIT RATE WAS ADOPTED ENTAILING ADDITION OF I NCOME ON THE SUPPRESSED AMOUNT OF SALES. SUCH DECISION WAS CARRI ED IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT R EJECTED THE APPEAL, OBSERVING THAT UNLESS THERE IS A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT INVESTMENT BY WAY OF INCURRING THE COST IN ACQUIRIN G THE GOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DISCLOSED, SUCH ADDITION COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDINGS OF FA CT, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ENTIRE SUM OF UNDISCLOSED SALE PROCEEDS CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ANSWERS B Y ITSELF IN THE ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 22 NEGATIVE. THE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE APPEAL HOLDIN G THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW WHICH REQUIRES TO BE REFERRED ARISE S. 11. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. GU RUBACHHAN SINGH J. JUNEJA, REPORTED IN (2008) 302 ITR 63 (GUJ .), ONCE AGAIN A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THIS COURT. I N THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF TYRES. SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENT IAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SHE ETS WHICH WERE SEIZED DURING SUCH SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SALES TO THE EXTENT OF 10.85 LAKHS WAS NOT FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SUCH AMOUNT WAS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) GAVE SUBSTANTI AL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND REDUCED THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF GROSS PROFIT RATE. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER (APPEALS). ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BY THE REVENUE, THE HIGH COURT REFUSED TO REFER ANY QUESTION HOLDIN G THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THER E WAS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH W AS REFLECTED BY THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SALES, THE FINDING OF TH E TRIBUNAL THAT ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE SAID AMOUNT CAN BE BRO UGHT TO TAX DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 12. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILL , REPORTED IN (2010) 326 ITR 410, WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT CONFIRME D THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTING ONLY THE PROFIT OF UNACCOUNT ED SALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING TAX. ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 23 13. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAN MOHAN SADANI V. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, REPORTED IN (2008) 304 ITR 52, WHEREIN REFERRI NG TO AND RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND OTHE R DECISIONS OF OTHER HIGH COURTS, THE M. P. HIGH COURT HAD ALSO TA KEN A SIMILAR VIEW. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN HIS INCOME AND THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS ERRED IN DOING SO. 14. WE MAY RECALL THAT THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE IMPUGNE D JUDGEMENT, RELIED ON ITS PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT IN CASE OF KISHOR MOHANLAL TELWALA. THE SAID JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNA L WAS APPARENTLY CARRIED IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE HI GH COURT BY A SPEAKING ORDER DATED 24.4.2000, DISMISSED THE APPEA L HOLDING THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW WAS INVOLVED. SIGNIFICANTLY , IN CASE OR KISHOR MOHANLAL TELWALA, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. IN HIS CASE, UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF RS. 1.47 CRORES WAS DETECTED. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE D IVISION BENCH CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DID NOT ACCE PT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT AS NO ACCOUNTS HAD B EEN MAINTAINED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE RESPOND ENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSE SSEE OUGHT TO HAVE SPENT REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REC EIVING SUCH GROSS RECEIPT. 15. IT CAN, THUS, BE SEEN THAT CONSISTENTLY, THIS C OURT AND SOME OTHER COURTS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE THAT EVEN UPON ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 24 DETECTION OF ON MONEY RECEIPT OR UNACCOUNTED CASH R ECEIPT, WHAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IS THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUC H RECEIPTS AND NOT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS THEMSELVES. IF THAT BE THE LEGAL POSITION, WHAT SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AS A REASONABLE PROFIT OUT OF S UCH RECEIPTS, MUST BEAR AN ELEMENT OF ESTIMATION. 16. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION THAT NOT THE ENTI RE RECEIPTS, BUT THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX, IN OUR VIEW, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTING SUCH ELEMENT OF PROFIT AT RS. 26 LAKHS OUT OF TOTAL UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS. 62 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS , WE ACCEPT THE LEGAL PROPOSITION, THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTING RS. 26 LA KHS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PROFIT OUT OF TOTAL UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS. 62 LAKHS, WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION OF LAW. 23. SIMILARLY, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS HARIRAM BHAMBHANI (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN ITS ORDER, THE CIT(A) RECORDE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NO UNACCOUNTED INVOICES WERE IMPOUNDED. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS UNACCOUNTED SALE BILLS WHICH WER E NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY, NO DOCUMENT WAS IMPOUNDED. HOWEVER, LATER IN ITS RETUR N FILED WITH THE REVENUE, IT DECLARED TURNOVER AT RS. 3.27 CRORE S, SHOWING A NET PROFIT OF RS 36.76 LAKHS. THE CIT(A) RELIED UPO N ITS DECISION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ADD THE AMOU NT OF RS. 35 LAKHS ONLY ON THE STATEMENT MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 25 SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCE TO UPHOLD TH E ADDITION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IN THE FACT S OF THE CASE, THAT ONLY 4% BEING THE PROFIT EARNED ON SALES OF RS . 35 LAKHS CAN BE ADDED TO NET PROFIT OF THE APPLICANT. THEREFORE, ONLY RS.1.40 LAKHS WAS THE PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALES WHICH COU LD BE ADDED. THUS, THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 33.63 LAKHS WAS D ELETED. 6. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HELD THAT THE ENTIRE SALES WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED/CANNOT BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY AS THE PURCHASE HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY NET P ROFIT WHICH WOULD ARISE ON SUCH UNACCOUNTED SALES CAN RIGHTLY B E TAKEN AS THE AMOUNT WHICH COULD BE ADDED TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSES SEE'S INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAX. 7. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SECTION 69C OF THE ACT IS TO BE INVOKED AND ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALE S HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE HOW SEC TION 69C OF THE ACT WHICH SPEAKS OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IS ALL AT RELEVANT FOR THIS APPEAL. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH ANY UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE IN THIS CASE. 8. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CIT(A) AND TRIBUN AL HAVE CAME TO THE CONCURRENT FINDING THAT THE PURCHASES H AVE BEEN RECORDED AND ONLY SOME OF THE SALES ARE UNACCOUNTED . THUS, IN THE ABOVE VIEW, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HELD THAT IT IS NO T THE ENTIRE SALES CONSIDERATION WHICH IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX BUT ONL Y THE PROFIT ATTRIBUTABLE ON THE TOTAL UNRECORDED SALES CONSIDER ATION WHICH ALONE CAN BE SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 26 AUTHORITIES IS A REASONABLE AND A POSSIBLE VIEW. TH US, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDER ATION. 24. FURTHER, THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE QUAN TUM OF UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER OF RS 1,77,95,859. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLA RED THE SAME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY LD PR CIT AS THERE IS NEITHER ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD N OR ANY ADVERSE FINDING RECORDED BY LD PR CIT DISPUTING THE SAME. THEREFOR E, AS FAR AS THE QUANTUM OF UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER OF RS 1,77,95,859/- IS CONCERNED, THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEO US AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE LIMITED IS SUE THAT REMAINS TO BE EXAMINED IS THE RATE OF PROFIT SO DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE ON SUCH UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER WHICH HAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO WHICH RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD PR CIT ARE SUSTAINED AND THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO TH E FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE RATE OF GROSS PROFIT SO DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER AND DECIDE AS PER LAW. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/03/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03/03/2021 * GANESH KR. ITA NO. 861/JP/2019 M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER VS. PCIT, JAIPUR 27 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD., AJMER 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- T AX-II, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 861/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR
Mehul