M/s Zazsons Exports Ltd., Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

MA 93/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3664 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.93/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.517/LKW/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-2007 M/S ZAZSONS EXPORTS LTD., 4-B, SHEETLA BAZAR, JAJMAU, KANPUR. PAN:AAACZ0776B VS. DY.C.I.T.-6, KANPUR. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI R. R. JAIN, F.C.A. SHRI HIREN KUMAR SETH, F.C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 09 /10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/11/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PO INTING OUT CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISC. APP LICATION THAT PAYMENT TO OUTSTANDING CREDITORS AS ON 31/03/2006 HAS BEEN MADE THROUGHOUT THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHEREAS IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL OR DER IN PARA 13, THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED ON THIS BASIS THAT SUCH PAYMENT TO OUTSTANDING CREDITORS AS ON 31/03/2006 WERE MADE AT THE END OF THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THIS MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE WH ICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. [2] 3. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE AS SESSEE THAT PAGES 174 TO 176 OF THE PAPER BOOK WERE ALSO REFERRED TO IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BUT THESE PAGES HAVE ESCAPED THE ATTENTI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. NEXT CONTENTION RAISED WAS TH AT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THIRD MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.E. THE PRECEDING YEAR. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE F IRST CONTENTION IN THE MISC. APPLICATION AND ALSO IN THE CONTENTION RA ISED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PAYMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 WERE MADE THROUGHOUT THE NEXT YEAR AS AGAIN ST THIS NOTING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 13 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE PAYMENTS TO SUCH CREDITORS WERE MADE AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEA R. IN THIS REGARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN PARA 8 OF THE IMPUG NED TRIBUNAL ORDER ON PAGE NO. 5, IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT EVEN I F THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION AND ADDRESSE S OF THE CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THIS BY GIVING THE NAME WISE DETAILS OF CREDITORS WITH DATE OF PURCHASE AND DATE WISE AMOUN T OF PURCHASE AND DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT. IN THAT MANNER, THE ASSESS EE COULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT FOR EACH PERSON, FROM WHOM THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PURCHASED RAW HIDE ON CREDIT, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT BI G AND THE CREDIT PERIOD WAS ALSO NOT VERY LONG. THIS IS SETTLED POS ITION OF LAW THAT ANY ORDER OR JUDGMENT SHOULD BE READ IN FULL AND NOT IN PIECEMEAL. EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE PAYMENT IN NEXT YEAR WAS MADE TO THE CREDITORS SHOWN OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/2006 ON VARIOUS DATES THROU GHOUT THE NEXT YEAR [3] AND NOT AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, T HIS HAS ALSO TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE PURCHASES IN THE PRESENT YEAR WER E ALSO THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND NOT AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005- 06 AND THIS IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDITORS SHOW N OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/2006 WERE THOSE CREDITORS ONLY FROM WHOM PURC HASES WERE MADE AT THE FAG END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. IN THAT SITUATION ALSO, IT COMES OUT THAT THE CREDITORS WERE SHOWN OUTSTANDING AT LE AST FOR A FULL YEAR ON AVERAGE BECAUSE THE PURCHASES WERE ADMITTEDLY MADE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND THE PAYMENTS WERE ADMITTEDLY SAID TO HA VE BEEN MADE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DATE W ISE DETAIL OF CREDITORS SHOWN OUTSTANDING WITH DATE OF PURCHASE AND DATE OF PAYMENT FOR EACH CREDITOR, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT ON AVERAGE, TH E OUTSTANDING SHOWN IS FOR ABOUT ONE FULL YEAR AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION I S ON THIS BASIS AS EXPLICITLY STATED IN PARA 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER T HAT IF A SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.10,000/- IS OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE SUPPLIER FOR A SMALL PERIOD OF 10-15 DAYS, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS P URCHASED THE GOODS ON CREDIT BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVEN SUCH DETAILS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THE GOODS WERE IN FACT PURCHASED ON CREDIT AND THEREFORE, IT IS VERY MUCH POSSIBLE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH FRO M UNDISCLOSED SOURCES BUT SUCH PAYMENT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR AND CREDITORS WERE SHOWN. IN FACT THIS IS THE ACTUAL DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH NO MISTAKE COULD BE POINTED OUT BY T HE ASSESSEE OR LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD STATE THAT THE PAYMENT IN NEXT YEAR WAS MADE THROUGHOUT THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR, THE DECISION AND CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT AFFECTED AND THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTION IS DE VOID OF ANY ME RIT. 6. THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT PAGES 174 TO 176 OF THE PAPER BOOK HAD ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE [4] IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. REGARDING THIS CONTENTION , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED TWO PAPER BOOKS. FIRST PAPE R BOOK IS CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 167. IN THE SECOND PAPER BOOK, AS PER T HE INDEX, THE PAGES ARE STATED TO BE FROM 168 TO 193 BUT IN FACT, PAGES 168 TO 177 ARE NOT APPEARING IN THE SECOND PAPER BOOK. BELOW THE INDE X OF PAPER BOOK ARE PAGES 1 TO 10 BEING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THEREAF TER, THE PAPER BOOK STARTS WITH PAGES 178 TILL 193. HENCE, IT IS SEEN T HAT THESE PAGES BEING 174 TO 176 ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK AND THER EFORE, ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BECAUSE WHEN THESE PAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE, HOW THE TRIBUNAL COU LD HAVE CONSIDERED THESE PAGES. 7. REGARDING THIRD CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER OF THI RD MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT IN PARA 8 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT WE HAV E EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF TRIBUNAL DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06 AND IN THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, HEAVY RELIANCE HAS BEEN P LACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, AGRA VS. PANCHAM DAS JAIN [2006] 156 TAXMAN 507 (ALL). BOTH THESE JUDGM ENTS WERE CONSIDERED AND A FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 9 OF THE TRIBU NAL ORDER THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FOLLOW ED THEREIN HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PANCHAM DAS (SUPRA) AR E NOT APPLICABLE. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE THIRD MEMBER TRIBUN AL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HENCE, THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO DE VOID OF ANY MERIT. [5] 8. AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS THAN APPARENT MISTAKE COULD BE SHOWN IN THE IMPUGNED TRI BUNAL ORDER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:17/11/2015 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR