Aankit Granites Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

MA 37/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6518 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G V GOPALA RAO CIT IDR
• Assessee Lawyers: C RAMESH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO.37/BANG/2011 (IN ITA NO.881/BANG/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 AANKIT GRANITES LTD., NO.886, 19 TH MAIN, 4 TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, 2 ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560 076. : APPELLANT VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI C. RAMESH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V. GOPALA RAO, CIT-I(DR) O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE SEEKING TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.4.2011 IN ITA NO.881/B/10 AS FAR AS GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS CONCERNED. 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,48,95,169 WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.2 REGARDIN G PURCHASES OF ROUGH BLOCKS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED MP NO.37/BANG/11 PAGE 2 OF 4 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT VERIFYING THE RECO RDS AND DOCUMENTS AS THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE SAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DOCUMEN TS PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE IN THE NATURE OF MONTHWISE STATEM ENT FROM APRIL 2005 TO MARCH 2006 CONSISTING OF ALL THE DETAILS OF GOODS R ECEIVED, DATE OF RECEIPT, ENTRY IN THE STORES, INVOICE NO., NAME OF THE PARTY , LORRY RECEIPT NO., PERMIT NO. AND FREIGHT PAID. HENCE IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE THE BENCH TO REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATI ON AND VERIFICATION AT HIS END. THE LD. DR HAD ALSO CONCURRED WITH THE SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THA T NO MATERIAL WAS PUT FORTH TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY OVERSIGHT AND THUS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION, WHICH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD . THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.3 PERTAINING TO FREIGHT IN WARD CHARGES OF RS.28,32,554 STANDS REMITTED TO AO BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. G ROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ARE INTERRELATED AND CONSIDERING THE SAME IN ADDITION T O THE ABOVE, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT GROUND NO.2 MAY ALSO BE REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR. HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT IN THE EVENT IF THE ISSUE IS T O BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO, THE AO SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO VERIFY ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SUCH AS INVOICES, FREIGHT BILLS, SALES TA X FORMS, ETC. LD. AR EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION FOR THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PAPERBOOK FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT WAS MP NO.37/BANG/11 PAGE 3 OF 4 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A STATEMENT S HOWING DETAILS OF SUPPLIER, INVOICE NO., DEBIT NOTES ETC. RUNNING TO SEVERAL PAGES. DURING THE TIME OF HEARING, EITHER THIS FACT WAS NOT BROUGHT O UT BEFORE THE BENCH OR THE BENCH HAD INADVERTENTLY NOT TAKEN NOTE OF. IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT O N RECORD HAS OCCURRED AND NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SINCE THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT IT IS IN POSSESSION OF ALL TH E INVOICES AND BILLS TO ESTABLISH ITS BONAFIDE CLAIM AND HAS FURNISHED A DE TAILED STATEMENT CONTAINING THE INVOICE NOS. ETC., WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMIT TED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR VERIFICATION OF PURCHASE INVOICES, FREIGHT B ILLS ETC. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS IN ORIGINAL A ND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS AS HE DEEMS FIT FOR ARRIVING AT A FAIR CONCLUSION O N THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROMPTLY PRODUCE ALL T HE DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION BEFORE THE LD. AO TO EXPEDITE THE PROCEE DINGS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011. DS/- MP NO.37/BANG/11 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.