The Kalind Stainless Steel Products Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(2), Ahmedabad

MA 128/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7930 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.128/AHD/2011 IN I.T.A. NO. 663/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200405) KALIND STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 152, GIDC ROAD NO.5, POST KATHWADA, TALL: DASKROI, DISTT. AHMEDABAD VS. ITO, WARD 4(2), AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AABCK4913C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI CHIRAG SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR . DR DATE OF HEARING: 02.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.04.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE POINTING OUT SOME MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 30.06.201 1. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CHART IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER: M.A.NO.128 /AHD/2011 2 ITEM QTY IN KG. OPENING STOCK - PURCHASE 14,21,380 ADD PURCHASE FOR TRADING 1,05,000 15,26,380 LESS: PRODUCTION 10,97,096 BALANCE 4,29,284 LESS: SHORTAGE 81,863 SHOULD BE CLOSING STOCK 3,47,421 2. THEREAFTER, IT AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THAT THIS C HART IS AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT BUT ACTUALLY THIS FACT IS NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A NEW CHART IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WHICH IS AS UNDER: ITEM QTY IN KG. OPENING STOCK - PURCHASE 14,21,380 LESS:PRODUCTION 10,97,096 BALANCE 3,24,284 LESS: SHORTAGE 81,863 SHOULD BE CLOSING STOCK 2,42,421 3. THEREAFTER, IT IS SUBMITTED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT AS PER THE RECONCILIATION IN VIEW OF THE NEW HART, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR, THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 4. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE SAME CON TENTIONS WERE REITERATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, HE ALSO SUBMITTED A SMALL PAPER BOOK OF 12 PAGES WHICH INCLUDES RELEVANT PART OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WHICH IS ON PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 5. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN T HE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS O F RAW MATERIAL AS GIVEN M.A.NO.128 /AHD/2011 3 IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE P APER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL AND ALS O ON PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF H EARING OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THIS CHART AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ANNEXURE IX F.Y.2003-04 PARTICULARS OF QUANTITIES DETAILS FORMING PAT OF FO RM NO.8CD RAW MATERIAL QTY IN KG. --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- OPENING PURCHASE SHORTAGE PURCHASE PRODUCTION CLOSING STOCK FOR TRADING STOCK IRON % STEEL - 1,421,380 81,663 105,000 1,097,096 137,421 SCRAP --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- 7. FROM THE ABOVE CHART, AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT, W E FIND THAT IN ADDITION TO PURCHASE OF 1421380 KG. THERE IS PURCHA SE OF 105000 KG. BEING PURCHASE FOR TRADING AND HENCE, THE CHART CON SIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IS IN LINE WITH THIS QUANTITATIVE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND THERE IS NO BASIS OF NEW CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WHICH HAS NOT INCLUDED THIS PURCHASE OF 105000 KG. BEING PURCHASE FOR TRADING. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (D. K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP M.A.NO.128 /AHD/2011 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 9/4 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10/4.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 13/4 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.13/4 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13/4/12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .