THE ACIT, CEN.CIR.-1, RAJKOT V. EMPIRE FLOUR MILLS P. LTD., RAJKOT

ITSSA 69/RJT/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8684 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA, AM IT (SS) A NO . 67 /RJT/20 03 . / BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD - 1991 - 92 TO 2000 - 2001 EMPIRE FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. NATIONAL HIGH WAY 8B, SHAPUR - VERAVAL, DIST - RAJKOT PAN: A AACE4713H ( / APPELLANT) VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1, RAJKOT / RESPONDENT IT (SS)A NO .69/RJT/2003. / BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD - 1.4.2000 TO 8.8.2000 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC - 1, RAJKOT ( / APPELLANT) VS. EMPIRE FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. NATIONAL HIGH WAY 8B, SHAPUR - VERAVAL, DIST - RAJK OT PAN: A AACE4713H / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY SHRI D M RINDANI / REVENUE BY SHRI. A NKUR GARG / DATE OF HEARING 4 .1.2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 .1.2013 / ORDER . . , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. THESE CROSS - APPEALS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1991 - 92 TO 2000 - 2001 AND THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2000 TO 8.8.2000 WERE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE COMMON ORDER DATE D 26.9.2 0 09. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT INTAX APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2010 VIDE IT(SS)A NO.67 AND 69/RJT/2003. 2 ORDER DATED 19.10.2011, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.6.2 0 09 FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2. IN PURSUANCE OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HON BLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT PASSED IN TAX APPEAL NO.398 OF 2010, ORDER DATED 19.10.2011, BOTH APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 4.1.2013. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.5,29,0 00/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF WHEAT FOR THE AY 2001 - 02. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED 2. THE AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.69.123/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS FOR THE AY 2001 - 02. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED 3. THE AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 12,20,800/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF WHEAT FOR AY 2001 - 02 AS MENTIONED IN PAGE 21 OF ANNEXURE A - 1. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED 4. THE AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,58,750/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF REFRACTION FOR THE AY 1999 - 200 0 AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN PAGE 32 OF ANNEXURE A - 1. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED 5 . THE AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 47,414/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS FOR THE AY 1999 - 00 AS MENTIONED IN PAGE 32 OF ANNEXURE A - 1. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED 6 . THE AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 60,393 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT MADE TO MR. ASHOK JHA FOR THE AY 2000 - 01 AS MENTIONED IN PAGES 102 TO 105 OF ANNEXURE A - 1 . THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED 7. THE AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 80,77/ - AS EXCESS CASH FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FOR T HE AY 2001 - 02. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED 8. THE AO ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158 OF THE ACT. THE CHARGING OF THE INTEREST IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT(SS)A NO.67 AND 69/RJT/2003. 3 3. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,29,000/ - TO RS.2,11,400/ - , MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS WHEAT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.69.123/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,22,800 TO RS.1,22,080/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF WHEAT, AS PER NOTING OF ANN EXURE A - 1. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,58,750/ - TO RS. 15,875/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF REFRACTION , AS PER NOTING OF ANNEXURE A - 1. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.47,414/ - TO RS.4,741/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FINISHED GOODS, AS PER NOTING OF ANNEXURE A - 1. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,00/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TO SHRI ASHKO JHA 4 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SHRI ANKUR GARG, CIT(DR) APPEAR ED AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2 0 03 OF CIT(A) - II - CC IN IR 01/02 - 03 AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS YEAR IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY GROUND, THE LD. CIT(A) MERELY REPRODUCED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE PARTIAL RELIEF WI THOUT RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR CONCLUSION THAT IT ARRIVED AT IN THE ORDER. THE LD. DR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES TH A T THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO STATE THE POINT S ARISEN IN APPEAL, D ECISIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES THEREON AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. HE ACCORDINGLY, IT(SS)A NO.67 AND 69/RJT/2003. 4 SUGGESTED THAT IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND HE BE DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH . 5 . SHRI D M RINDANI, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPE ARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IN CASE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 11.4.2003 IS SET ASIDE FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES . 6. WE HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO CONSIDERED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE APPEAL, THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROVISION IS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE S PEAKING ORD ER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WOULD OBVIOUSLY ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE A SSES SEE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. IT(SS)A NO.67 AND 69/RJT/2003. 5 7 . IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. T HIS O RDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD SD ( . . / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ( . . / T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICI AL MEMBER / ORDER DATE 11 . 1. 2013 . /RAJKOT SRL / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / APPELLANT - 2. / RESPONDENT - 3. / CONCERNED CIT , JAMNAGAR. 4. - / CIT (A) , JAMNAGAR. 5. , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.