ITO, Kaithal V. M/s New India Rice Mill, Kaithal

MA 54/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5840 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 54/CHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 622/CHD/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) THE ITO, VS. M/S NEW INDIA RICE MILLS, WARD-3, KAITHAL KAITHAL PAN NO. AAFFN4639E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 08.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE DEPARTMENT STATING THEREIN THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS OCCUR RED IN THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN AFORESAID ITA N O. 622/CHD/2009 AND C.O. NO. 42/CHD/2009. 2. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 1,21,13 7/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF HUSK WAS MADE BY THE A.O. WHICH STOOD DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE ITAT WHILE CONFIRMING TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED THE FIGURE OF THE AMOUN T AT RS. 73,544/- INSTEAD OF RS. 1,21,137/-. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER PLE ADED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 2 2,46,695/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC COUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF SUPERFINE RICE, WHICH STOOD DELET ED BY THE CIT(A). THE ITAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE FIGURES OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,46,695/- HAS INADVERTENTLY BEEN T AKEN OF RS. 42,708/- WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- OUT OF WAGES AND LABOUR EXPENSES DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THIS CASE AND, HENCE, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE EXPUNGED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED THAT GROUND NO.2 OF THE AP PEAL REGARDING DELETING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,615/- BY THE CIT (A), WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF R ICE HUSK HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT HAS, THEREFORE, BE EN SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID MISTAKES HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER DATED 9. 12.2010, WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION. 3. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROU GH THE RECORD. WE FIND THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE TO BE CORRECT. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3 OF ITS OR DER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,73,270/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF NAKKU IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT NAKKU IS NOT A PART OF RICE AND IT IS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE GOVT. AGENCIES WITH RICE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,615/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF RICE HUSK 3 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN FIRM ITSELF WAS SHOWING HIGHER YIELD IN THE SAME AREA. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELEING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,21,137/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF HUSK AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SHOWN SALE OF HUSK AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 58.78 PER QTL. DURIN G THE YEAR AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF HUSK WAS OF INFERIOR QUALITY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,46,695/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE CLO SING STOCK OF RICE WAS OUT OF THE PURCHASE MADE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 31.3.2006. 5. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE TAKING UP FOR ADJUDICA TION GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, INADVERTENTLY HAS DISCUSSED GRO UND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL WHICH IS REGARDING VALUING OF THE CLOSING STOCK. G ROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL INADVERTENTLY HAS REMAINED ADJUDICATED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO.2 ONLY. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND N O.3, THE TRIBUNAL WRONGLY MENTIONED THE SAME AS GROUND NO.2 AND ALSO MENTIONED THE FIGURE OF ADDITION AT RS. 73,544 WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF AD DITION CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE WAS RS. 1,21,137/-. WE FURTHER FIND THAT S IMILARLY WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.4, THE SAME HAS BEEN MENTION ED AS GROUND NO.3 IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER AND FURTHER THE FIGURE OF AD DITION OF RS 42,708/- HAS BEEN WRONGLY WRITTEN IN PLACE OF ACTUAL FIGURE OF R S. 2,46,695/- IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STO CK OF SUPERFINE RICE. 4 WE ALSO FIND THAT NO GROUND REGARDING THE ADDITION OUT OF WAGES AND LABOUR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL. 7. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER THE FOLLOWING RECTIFICATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9.12.2010: 1. IN THE OPENING LINES OF PARA 7, THE WORDS THE GROU ND NO.2 WILL BE READ AS THE GROUND NO.3 . IN THE FIFTH LINE OF PARA 7 OF THE ORDER, THE WORDS ADDITION OF RS. 73,544/- WILL BE READ AS ADDITION OF RS.1,21,137 /. 2. IN THE OPENING LINES OF PARA 8, THE WORDS THE GROU ND NO.3 WILL BE READ AS 2. IN THE SEVENTEENTH LINE OF PA RA 8 OF THE ORDER, THE WORDS ADDITION OF RS. 42,708-/ WILL BE READ AS ADDITION OF RS.2,46,695 /- . 3. PARA 9 OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2010 IS ORDERED TO B E DELETED . A SEPARATE CORRIGENDUM TO THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2010 BE ISSUED IN THIS RESPECT. 9. FURTHER, THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2010 IS RECALLED F OR THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR ADJUDICATION ON GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL REGA RDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,615/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF RICE HUSK W HICH HAS REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. REST OF THE FINDINGS, SUBJECT TO RE CTIFICATIONS, AS ORDERED ABOVE, WILL REMAIN AS SUCH. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13.11.2017 RKK 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR