M/S EMMAR ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

CO 8/RAN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur against M/s Emmar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., concerning the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2010-2011. The appeals challenged the orders passed by the CIT(A), Patna-3, which were in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT-Departmental Representative (DR) recused from arguing the case due to administrative constraints and the nature of the appeals. The Tribunal decided to proceed on the merits based on the records and documents available, ultimately restoring the matter to the AO for a detailed examination of incriminating materials found during a search operation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780094 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM IT(SS)A Nos.27 & 28/RAN/2021 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2006-2007 & 2010-2011) DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur Vs. M/s Emmar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Room No.23, 4th Floor, Raja Apartment, Post Office Road, Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AABCE 8796 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) AND Cross Objection Nos.08 & 10/RAN/2022 (Arising out of IT(SS)A Nos.27&28/Ran/2021) (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2006-2007 & 2010-2011) M/s Emmar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Room No.23, 4th Floor, Raja Apartment, Post Office Road, Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jamshedpur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AABCE 8796 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : None निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The revenue has filed two appeals being IT(SS)A Nos.27&28/Ran/2021 against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, both dated 11.10.2021, for the assessment years 2006- 2007 & 2010-2011. The assessee has also filed cross objections being CO Nos.08&10/Ran/2022 arising out of the above appeals of the revenue. 2. The ld. CIT-DR also sought adjournment in these cases on the following grounds :- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.27&28/Ran/21 CO Nos.08&10/Ran/2022 2 3. The number of cases posted during the week is nearly 250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected. 4. It may also be worthwhile to mention here that another reason given by the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative for adjournment is that in some of the appeals, orders have been passed by the office of the impugned CIT- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.27&28/Ran/21 CO Nos.08&10/Ran/2022 3 DR personally. Here, it is to be mentioned that in respect of the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which have been challenged by the revenue, it can be said that it would be difficult for the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative to defend such orders, in so far as he would be arguing against his own orders. But in such cases, where the orders have been passed against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal, we find no reason as to why the ld. CIT-DR would not be able to defend his own orders. In any case orders have been issued against the assessee. When this was put to the ld. CIT- DR, it was a submission that should the Tribunal pass an order reversing the order of ld. CIT(A), he could be questioned under administrative provisions. This does not stand to be a reason, in so far as the appeal provisions have been provided by the statute. It is human to err. If there is no order passed by the Assessing Officer, then obviously post of CIT(A) is required and if there is no order of ld. CIT(A), there is no requirement of the Tribunal so on and so forth. Various stages of appeals are provided so that necessary proceedings are available for both the assessee and the revenue to defend their stands. Decisions taken by the appellate authority as a judicial or quasi judicial forums, are not subject to administrative reviews. Appeal provisions are provided by the statute. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that repeatedly the courts have been holding that the ld. CIT(A) are quasi judicial authorities and no administrative pressure can be put on them to decide any issues in any specific manner. We are of the view that such apprehension of the ld. CIT-DR is unfounded. Consequently, the submission of the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.27&28/Ran/21 CO Nos.08&10/Ran/2022 4 was that he is recusing from the arguments. His plea is accepted. The matters are disposed off on merits on the basis of records and documents available before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has also filed an adjournment application for both the years under consideration mentioning that he is busy at ITAT Mumbai Benches. The reasons taken for adjournment of the appeals on behalf of the assessee, in our opinion, are not plausible, therefore, the adjournment application filed by the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee in both the years under consideration stands rejected. 6. We have perused the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the assessment order shows that there was a search on the premises of Madhu Korah and his associates on 31.10.2009. On the basis of search, there is an allegation that incriminating materials have been found and the matters have been referred to the CBI for investigation and under the PML Act. The assessment order, admittedly, does not talk of the incriminating materials, which have been found in the course of search. There is a lot of discussion that there are incriminating materials and that there is application before the settlement commission. However, none of the facts are coming out of the assessment order nor from the order of the ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) also shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered an additional income of Rs.1 crore having been offered by the assessee before the settlement commission. The ld. CIT(A) is also not referring to non-bringing out any of the details of incriminating materials which have been found during the course of search. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.27&28/Ran/21 CO Nos.08&10/Ran/2022 5 It must be mentioned here that the assessment has been made in this case u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act. Obviously, the said provisions required the presence of incriminating material found in the course of search. This being so, so as to meet the interest of justice, we are of the view that the issues in both the appeals of the revenue must be restored to the file of ld. AO to redo the assessment after specifying the details in the nature of incriminating materials which have been found in the course of search. The assessments have been done u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act, admittedly, incriminating material should have been found in the course of search of the third party on whom the search was taken place but relating to the assessee. This being so, as also considering the fact that the matters are pending before the CBI court and the court under PML Act, the issues in both the appeals of the revenue are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. All the issues are left open. A liberty is also granted to the assessee to raise all such legal issues before the AO. Thus, both appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Since we have remitted the issues involved in both the appeals of the revenue to the file of ld. AO for readjudication afresh, therefore, the cross objection filed by the assessee are also restored to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication along with the appeals of the revenue. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.27&28/Ran/21 CO Nos.08&10/Ran/2022 6 8. In the result, both appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2025. Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) लेख सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्य नयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER र ाँची Ranchi; दिनाांक Dated 06/10/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश िुस र/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची / ITAT, Ranchi 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- . 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकि आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकि अपीलीय अनर्किण, र ाँची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "