IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA I.T. (S&S) A.NO. 76 /COCH/200 4 BLOCK PERIOD: 1990 - 91 TO 1999 - 2000 BROKEN PERIOD UPTO 06-05-1999 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), ERNAKULAM. VS. M/S. KAIRALI WINES (IMFL), MAIN ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO.60/COCH/2006 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.(S&S)A.NO.76/COCH/2004 BLOCK PERIOD: 1990 - 91 TO 1999 - 2000 BROKEN PERIOD UPTO 06-05-1999 M/S . KAIRALI WINES (IMFL), MAIN ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), ERNAKULAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI S.C. SONKAR, CIT.,DR ASSESSEE BY NONE O R D E R PER N.VIJAYAKUMARAN,J.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPAR TMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2 LA KHS IN RESPECT OF INFLATION OF EXPENSES. IT(S&S)A NO.76/COCH/2004 & CO NO.60/COCH/2006 2 2. IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE, QUA THE A SSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. CIT., DR. THE LD. CIT.,DR WO ULD SUBMIT THAT THIS APPEAL IS NOT HIT UNDER THE MONETARY LIMI T PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE P & L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEARS 1998-9 9 AND 1999-2000 WHICH LED TO DETECTION OF SHORT FALL IN N ET PROFIT HAD BEEN PREPARED FROM THE IMPOUNDED SET OF BOOKS, WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, WH ICH IS DIRECTLY COVERED ON THE FACTS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT., DR. SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) I S TO BE REVERSED AND RESTORED THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. CI T., DR. AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE URGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT., DR AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE MA TERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS A PPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS HIT BY THE MONETARY LIMIT, AS IT IS FAR IT(S&S)A NO.76/COCH/2004 & CO NO.60/COCH/2006 3 BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT FOR FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, WE HAVE NO HES ITATION IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS NOT MAINTAI NABLE. 4. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. TURNING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION, WE FIND THAT THE RE IS A DELAY OF 14 MONTHS AND 10 DAYS IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION. THE AFFIDAVIT OF ONE A.S. NARAYANAN NAIR ALSO PERUS ED. THE AFFIDAVIT IS DATED 20-04-2006. IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA BANNED THE PRIVATE SELLIN G OF IMFL W.E.F. 1-4-2001. DUE TO THIS CHANGE IN TH E POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT, WE WERE FORCED TO CLOSE DOWN OUR OFFICE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE BLOCK PERIO D 1990-91 TO 1999-20-00 WAS RECEIVED AT OUR GROUP OFFICE WHIC H WAS MISPLACED BY OUR STAFF. THE NON FILING WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ONLY LATER. THIS IS A VAGUE EXPLANATION FOR THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. THERE IS AN EXTRA-ORDINA RY DELAY OF 14 MONTHS AND 10 DAYS IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECT ION. UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REJECT THE PRAYER FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-FI LING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED IS NOT ESTA BLISHED. IT(S&S)A NO.76/COCH/2004 & CO NO.60/COCH/2006 4 HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED AT THE PREL IMINARY STAGE ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.VIJAYKUMARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER ERNAKULAM, DATED THE 14 TH OCTOBER,2010. PM. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. KAIRALI WINES (IMFL), MAIN ROAD,MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. CIT(A)-II, CALICUT. 4. CIT, ERNAKULAM. 5. D.R.