Shri Rameshkumar Mafatlal Doshi, Surat V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Surat

MA 187/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0409 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JM ANDSHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM) M.A. NO.187/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.838/AHD/2008 FOR Y.: 2004-05) SHRI RAMESHKUMAR MAFATLAL DOSHI, PROP. M/S. BLUE STAR, 501, RAJENDRA KRUPA BUILDING, JADAKADI, MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT P. A. NO. AAACV 8015 D VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3), SURAT (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI TEJ SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SUMIT KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 21-06-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28-06-2013 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.838/AHD/2008. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT WITH REGA RD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.44,30,279/- BEING DISALLOWANCE @25% ON TOTAL PUR CHASES, THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 20 OF ITS ORDER DATED 18-06-2010 HAD HELD AS U NDER:- 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE RES TORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WHO WILL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE AND IDENTIFY THE ONLY CASH PURCHASES FOR THE PURPOSE OF RATIO IN VIJAY PROTEINS (SUPRA). HE WILL, HOWEVER, CONSIDER THE GP RATE ALSO WHICH WOULD RESULT AFTER MAKING THIS ADDITION. THE GP RAT E DECLARED IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS WILL BE CONSIDERED WHILE MAKING TH E ADDITIONS EITHER OUT OF LABOUR PAYMENTS OR OUT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES . THUS THIS GROUND IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. M. A. NO.187/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.838/AHD/2008 (AY 2 004-05) SHRI RAMESH KUMAR M. DOSHI VS ITO, W-6 (3), SURAT 2 3. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THA T THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ABOVE ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.44,30,279/- APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE GP RATE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE FOR APPLYING THE RATIO OF DECISION OF VIJAY PROTEINS. S O, THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT GP RATIO IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED IN THIS CASE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION, SO, IT APPEARS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVE N THE DIRECTION THAT CASH PURCHASES WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AP PLICATION OF DECISION OF VIJAY PROTEINS AND THE ADDITION WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE G P RATIO IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THIS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED SO THAT AO DID NO T MAKE ADDITION ONLY BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF VIJAY PROTEINS. IN FACT, T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS ALSO TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSEES GP RATIO WAS ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND RELIED ON THIS ORDER. IT WAS THUS PRAYED BY THE LEARNED AR TH AT GP OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. 4. THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LEARNED AR AND ARGUED THAT ANY MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL WILL TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW AND THAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. IT WAS T HEREFORE ARGUED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DI SMISSED. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUS ING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CLEAR AND UN AMBIGUOUS. THE BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E FOR IDENTIFYING THE CASH PURCHASES FOR WHICH THE RATIO HELD IN THE DECISION OF THE CASE VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. (1996) CITED IN 55 TTJ (AHD) 76 SHALL BE APPLIED AN D FURTHER THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DECLARED IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS WILL BE CONSIDERE D WHILE MAKING ADDITION EITHER UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR PAYMENTS OR UNAPPROVED PUR CHASES. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AO F OR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE SAME. M. A. NO.187/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.838/AHD/2008 (AY 2 004-05) SHRI RAMESH KUMAR M. DOSHI VS ITO, W-6 (3), SURAT 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-06-2013 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANTA AA A DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTR AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: DIRECT ON COMPUTER 24-06-201 3 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 24-06-2013 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: