M/s Orma Marble Palace, Cochin V. ACIT, Ernakulam

ITSSA 24/COCH/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9175 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2004
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K THATTAI
• Assessee Lawyers: COCH; P J BABU C A ITSS A NOS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA I.T.(S&S)A.NO.44/COCH/2004 BLOCK A.Y:1990-91 TO 1999-200 AND BROKEN PERIOD UPTO 2-3-2000 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1(2), ERNAKULAM. VS. M/S. ORMA GRANITE PALACE , ANGAMALLY. PA NO.AAAFO 4574B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.(S&S)A.NO.24/COCH/2004 BLOCK A.Y:1990-91 TO 1999-200 AND BROKEN PERIOD UPTO 2-3-2000 M/S. ORMA GRANITE PALACE, ANGAMALLY. PA NO.AAAFO 4574B VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE- 1(2), ERNAKULAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.(S&S)A.NO.46/COCH/2004 BLOCK A.Y:1990-91 TO 1999-200 AND BROKEN PERIOD UPTO 2-3-2000 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1(2), ERNAKULAM. VS. M/S. NEW ORMA MARBLE PALACE, KOTTAYAM. PA NO.AACFN 5568L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & I.T.(S&S)A.NO.26/COCH/2004 BLOCK A.Y:1990-91 TO 1999-200 AND BROKEN PERIOD UPTO 2-3-2000 M/S. NEW ORMA MARBLE PALACE, KOTTAYAM. PA NO.AACFN 5568L VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE- 1(2), ERNAKULAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI A.K. THATTAI, CIT., DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.J. BABU, C.A IT(S&S) A NOS./24,26,44 & 46/COCH/2004 2 O R D E R PER N.VIJAYAKUMARAN,J.M: OUT OF THESE FOUR APPEALS, TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSES AND OTHER TWO APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TW O SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 14-01-2004 OF CIT(APPEALS)-V, KOCHI. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED ARE 1990-91 TO 1999- 2000 AND BROKEN PERIOD UPTO 02-03-2000. THESE APP EALS ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.158BC(C) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT BOTH ASSESSES ARE ONE AND THE SAME GROUP. THERE ARE THREE OTHER CONCERNS IN THIS GROUP, VIZ. A) M/S. ORMA AGENCIES, ANGAMALY; B) M/S. ORMA MARBILE PALALCE PVT.LTD., ANGAMALY; & C) M/S. ORMA MARBLE PALACE, KOTTAYAM. ALL THESE FIRMS ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MARB LES, TILES, ETC. IT(S&S) A NOS./24,26,44 & 46/COCH/2004 3 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF THESE TWO A SSESSES ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF M/S. ORMA MARBLE PALACE, KOT TAYAM (IT(S&S)A NOS.25 & 45/COCH/2004), EXCEPT FIGURES. IN THESE APPEALS ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDIT IONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY WAY OF A) UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER INVOICING OF SALES BILLS; B) ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND SALES; C) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES; & D) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK FOUND ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. SO ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED SUR-CHARGE U/S .113 OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. SIMILAR WERE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF M/S. NEW MARBLE PALACE, KOTT AYAM (ITA NOS. 45 & 25/COCH/2004) AND THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) DECIDED THE ISSUES (A), (B), (C) AND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF SURCHARGE U/S.113 IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BUT IN RESPECT IT(S&S) A NOS./24,26,44 & 46/COCH/2004 4 OF ISSUE (D) DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RED UCING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK. IN THE PRESE NT CASES, THERE IS NO CHANGE, I.E. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION. 5. ANOTHER SALIENT FEATURE IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESS ES BELONG TO ONE AND THE SAME GROUP, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEES, DISCUSSIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE AVERMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL ARE ALSO ONE AND SAME. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THESE TWO ASSESSEES AND THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AP PEALS ARE SIMILAR AS IN THE CASE OF M/S. NEW MARBLE PALAC E, KOTTAYAM. THIS BEING THE FACTUAL POSITION, OUR FI NDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THE CASE OF M/S. NEW MARBLE PALACE, KOTTAYAM (ITA NOS.45 & 25/COCH/2004) ARE ALSO APPLI CABLE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ALSO. THESE ASPECTS HAVE BE EN AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES. HENCE, WE ARE NOT REPEAT ING IN THIS ORDER THOSE FACTS, ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES AND THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FOLLOW OUR OWN ORD ER OF EVEN DATE IN THE CASE OF M/S. NEW MARBLE PALACE, KO TTAYAM (ITA NOS.45 & 25/COCH/2004) AND GIVE SAME FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, VIZ. IT(S&S) A NOS./24,26,44 & 46/COCH/2004 5 A ISSUE OF U NDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER INVOICING OF SALE BILLS CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER STANDS CONFIRMED B ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND SALES -DO- C UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE -DO- D UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK FOUND ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SEARCH PARTLY ALLOWED E LEVY OF SUR - CHARGE U/S.113 OF THE I.T.ACT. CIT(APPEALS) ORDER SET ASIDE AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.VIJAYKUMARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER ERNAKULAM, DATED THE 22 ND JUNE,2010. PM. COPY FORWARDED TO:P 1. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2), ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. NEW ORMA MARBLE PALACE, KUMARANALLOOR, KOTTAYA M. 3. M/S. ORMA GRANITE PALACE, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ANGAMA LLY. 4. CIT(A)-V, KOCHI. 5. CIT, KOCHI. 6. D.R.