Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8706 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-01-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
21-01-2015
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
03-09-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 906/CHD/2012 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ) M/S NABHA PAPER MILLS LTD., VS. THE J.C.I.T., DHURI ROAD, RANGE IV, MALERKOTLA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAACN8155E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : DR.AMARVEER SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.01.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 28.6.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LACS UNDER SECTIO N 69C OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PAPERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND THAT THE PURCHASE RATE OF HUSK IS ON LOWER SIDE THAN THE ACTUAL MARKET RATE. THE COMPARABLE CASES WERE ALSO CITED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE ADDI TION BE 2 NOT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN P URCHASE OF HUSK UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E HAS ALREADY MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN PURCHASE OF HUSK DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 18.2.2009. THE ASS ESSEE FILED REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOTED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALSO NOTED THAT AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN AGREED ADDITION OF RS.15 LA CS THROUGH ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 22.10.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS.15 LACS. THE LEA RNED CIT (APPEALS) AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AL SO NOTED CERTAIN DECISIONS ON THE POINT THAT NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE AGREED ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ADDITION ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED D.R FOR THE REVENU E SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS AN AGREED ADDITION. THEREFOR E, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ON GO ING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE ASS ESSEE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PURCHASE RATE OF HUSK IS ON LOWER SIDE THAN THE ACTUAL MARKET RATE A ND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CALLED FOR, TH E ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL HAS AGREED FOR ADDITION OF RS.1 5 LACS ON 3 THE ABOVE ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AGREED BASIS. 4. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF BANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH VS. CIT, 125 ITR 239(P&H) HELD AS UNDER : HELD, THAT IT WAS ON THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE , WHICH AGREEMENT MENTIONED THE RATE AS WELL AS THE F IGURE, THAT PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT TO AGITATE THIS QUESTION IN APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT GOING INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE P ENALTY WAS IN LAW THE MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER S.271 (1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 5. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JIV ATLAL PURTAPSHI, 65 ITR 261 (BOM.) HELD AS UNDER : HELD, THAT THE DEPARTMENT, HAVING AGREED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT FROM THE COMMISSIONER AND HAVING CONCEDE D THE DELETION BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AGGRIEVED BY THIS PART OF THE ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO FILE AN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL; THE AP PEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE DELETION OF THE AMOUNT WAS NEITHER COMPETENT NOR CAPABLE OF BEING ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. VAMADE VAN BHANU 330 ITR 559 (KER) HELD AS UNDER : ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ON AGREED BASIS ASSESSEE CANNNOT APPEAL AGAINST SUCH ORDER- INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4 7. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEING THE ADDITION IN QUESTION IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AGREED BASIS AS WAS AGREED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH JANUARY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
