M/s Ajanta Brick Field, Malda V. ITO,Ward-1, Malda, Malda

MA 67/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9745 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOLKATA () BEFORE , /AND ! ' ! , ) [BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] M.A. NO.67/KOL/2012 IN # # # # / I.T.A NO. 1754/KOL/2011 '$% &' '$% &' '$% &' '$% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 M/S. AJANTA BRICK FIELD VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-1, MALDA (PAN:AAEFA5377J) ( /APPLICANT ) ()*+/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 16.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.12.2012 FOR THE APPLICANT: SHRI SIBNATH SANYAL FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI P. K. MONDAL, SR. DR , / ORDER BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS R EQUESTED FOR AMENDMENT IN THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2012. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE I S THAT THE DIFFERENCE FOUND, I.E. BEING DISPUTED BRICKS OF 312925 PCS. I.E. DIFFERENCE BETW EEN STOCK FOUND BY SURVEY PARTY AND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ACTUALLY SOLD DURING THE FY 19 99-2000 RELEVANT TO AY 2000-01. BEFORE US RELEVANT AY IS 1999-2000. THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE I.E. UNPROCESSED BRICKS NO. 312925 PCS. WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CLO SING STOCK FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.1999. THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY I. T. DEPARTMENT ON 30. 03.1999 WHEN THIS DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND BY THE SURVEY PARTY OF THE DEPARTMENT. EVEN ASSESS EE BEFORE TRIBUNAL ON 23.01.2012 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL AND EVEN NOW DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION COULD NOT EXPLAIN BY ANY COGENT EVIDENC E THAT DISPUTED BRICKS WERE NOT SOLD IN NEXT YEAR. ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION W AS, SINCE THE BRICKS WERE NON-PACKAGING GOODS HENCE IT WAS SOLD FROM THE STAKING OF BRICKS YEAR WISE KEPT IN THE BRICK FIELD. THE FIRM NEITHER ANY SHOP NOR HAVE A GODOWN WHERE THOSE DISP UTED BRICKS TO BE PRESERVED SEPARATELY. GENERAL TRADE PRACTICE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS TO DISPOSE OF THE OLD BRICKS AT FIRST HAND FROM THE WEAR AND TEAR AND ALSO FROM LOSS OF SALE PRICE FOR DEFECTIVE GOODS AND ALSO DUE TO DEPRECIATION OF BRICKS. WHEN DIRECT EVIDENCE OF SALE WAS NOT AV AILABLE, THE APPELLANT HAD NO ALTERNATIVE THAN TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT ON OATH AND CLARIFIED THE SA LE. 2 MA 67/K/2012 AJANTA BRICK FIELD A.Y. 1999-2000 2. WE FIND THAT EVEN NOW DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG OF MISC. APPLICATION HEREIN, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHAT TO TAL K OF ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECO RDED CATEGORICAL FINDING IN PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2012 AS UNDER: 5. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY TOTAL BRICKS FOUND WAS AT 8,61,300 PIECES AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OUT OF WHICH 4 LACS PIECES WERE UNDER PROCESSED BUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT IS RECORDED AT 5,48,375 PIECES OF BRICKS AND THEREBY DIFFERENCE OF 3,12,925 PIECES OF BRICKS. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, OUT OF THIS STOCK OF 8,61,300 PIECES, 4 LACS PIECES WERE UNDER PROCESS AND OUT OF THE SAME 3,12,925 PIECES WERE SOLD IN THE NEXT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 RELEVANT TO FY 19 99-2000. FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS WORK IN PROGRESS THE SAME IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THESE 4 LACS PIECES OF BRICKS MAY BE UND ER PROGRESS OR PROCESSING, HAVE TO BE RECORDED BUT IT IS NOT THE CASE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW ANY DETAILS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR IMMEDIATELY NEXT YEAR WHICH PR OVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE ALLEGED STOCK. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS DIRECTION OF TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT SALE PROCEEDS OF THE EXCESS ST OCK WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE AR. WE FIND THAT FROM THE ABOVE AGREEMENT WITH LABOUR SARDAR SHRI UPENDRA NATH MOND AL, WHICH NOWHERE PROVES THAT THESE WERE SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW ANY MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 29.02.2012 AND GOING FURTHER, COULD NOT SHOW ANY EVIDENCE FOR SALE OF UNPROCESSED BRICKS DURING THE NEXT YEAR, WE CANNOT ENTERTAIN TH IS MISC. PETITION OF ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.12.2012 SD/- SD/- , ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! , (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( - - - -) )) ) DATED : 28 TH DECEMBER, 2012 ./ '$01 '2 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 MA 67/K/2012 AJANTA BRICK FIELD A.Y. 1999-2000 , 3 ''4 54&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . *+ / APPELLANT M/S. AJANTA BRICK FIELD, C/O SHRI SHIB NATH SANYAL, ADVOCATE, 83/A, BANDH ROAD, GOLAPATTY, PO & DIST. MALDA-732101. 2 . )*+ / RESPONDENT, ITO, WARD-1, MALDA . 3 . ',$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), JALPAIGURI 4. ',$ / CIT, JALPAIGURI 5 . ='> '$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA )4 '/ TRUE COPY, ,$/ BY ORDER, ! 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .