Mongia Hi-Tech Pvt Ltd., V. ACIT,

ITSSA 11/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1197 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK ROUSHAN SR S C
• Assessee Lawyers: K N PRASAH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CIRCUIT BENCH : RANCHI [BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI N. S. SAINI, AM AND GEORGE M ATHAN, JM] IT (SS) A NOS.10, 11 & 12/RAN/2014 AYS: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 MONGIA HI-TECH PVT. LTD., BURHIADIH, TUNDI ROAD, GIRIDIH 815301 PAN: AABCM4621M VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI K. N. PRASAH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI DEEPAK ROUSHAN, SR. SC DATE OF HEARING: 04-11-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04-11-2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), DHANBAD, JHARKHAND IN APPEAL NO.372/DHN/11-12, 371/DHN/11-12 AND 373/DHN/ 11-12 DATED 19-03-2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SHRI K. N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI DEEPAK ROUSHAN, SR. SC REPRESENTE D ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION REPRESENTIN G THE EXCESS IT (SS) A NO. 10.11 & 12/R/2014 (AYS: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07) 2 PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY PAYMENT TO DVC, KOLKATA WHIC H WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PERMITTED TWO OTHER COMPANIES NAME LY, M/S. SUPER CREATION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. KOTAGIRI TRADELINK PVT. LTD. WHO USED THE SURPLUS POWER AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THEIR BUSINESS PURPOSES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR AGREEING TO PAY THE RESPECTIVE ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION CHARGES. IT WAS A SUBMISSIO N THAT CONSEQUENTLY THOUGH THE BILLS WERE RAISED IN THE NAME OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ONLY SO MUCH OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL AS WA S RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE RELATED TO M/S. SUPER CREA TION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. KOTAGIRI TRADELINK PVT. LTD. WERE PAID FOR BY THEM. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AS THE BILLS WERE RAISED IN THE NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENTS THOUGH MADE BY M/S. SUPER CREATION P VT. LTD. AND M/S. KOTAGIRI TRADELINK PVT. LTD. WERE TREATED AS PAYMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TO THE EXT ENT AS PAID FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT, THAT HAS BEEN PAID FOR BY M/S . SUPER CREATION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. KOTAGIRI TRADELINK PVT. LTD. HAV E BEEN CLAIMED IN THEIR PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION TH AT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODU CE THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. SUPER CREATION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. KOTAGIRI TRADELINK PVT. LTD. AS ALSO THE OTHER DETAILS. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE A SSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENC ES BEFORE THE AO. TO THIS PROPOSITION, THE LEARNED DR DID NOT RAISE A NY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS VOLUM INOUS AND CONSISTING SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF DETAILS. THESE, A DMITTEDLY WERE NOT IT (SS) A NO. 10.11 & 12/R/2014 (AYS: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07) 3 BEFORE THE AO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTERES T OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN THESE APPEALS ARE RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE STAND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CLOSE OF HEARING ON 04-11-2015. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 04-11-2015 L LL LK DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER IT (SS) A NO. 10.11 & 12/R/2014 (AYS: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07) 4 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFTS ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 04.11.15 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04.11.15 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 04.11.15 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 04.11. 15 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 04.11.15 S R.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 .11.15 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ` 04 .11.15 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER