M/s. Shree Shree Radhaswamy Plastics Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1176/DEL/2017 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 117620114 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AABCS8540F
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1176/DEL/2017
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s)
Appellant M/s. Shree Shree Radhaswamy Plastics Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 24-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 24-07-2017
First Hearing Date 24-07-2017
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 28-02-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1176/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/ SHREE SHREE RADHASWAMY VS. ITO WARD 23(3) PLASTICS LTD. NEW DELHI KU-160 PITAM PRUA C.R. BUILDING DELHI 110 034 NEW DELHI (PAN:- AABCS8540F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K.L. ANEJA ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 16.5.2016 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)- 17 NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION VOID -AB -INITIO AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE FORMATION OF BELIEF ABOUT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TAX WAS WITHOUT ANY SUBJECTIVE MATERIAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE INCOME TAX RETURN WHILE FORMING BELIEF. 2 THE WORTHY 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS IN ERROR BY NOT APPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION GOING TO THE ROOT INITIATION OF PROCESS U/S. 148. 2) THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 148 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT FIRST DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTION AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GET VITIATED AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT AS MADE WAS NULL AND VOID NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. IT MAY BE ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. 3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 ABOV E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEN THE WORTHY 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AND THEN BEFORE THE WORTHY COMM. (APPEAL) UNDER RULE 46A REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON THE SAID DATE OF DEPOSIT CAUSING SUCH ADDITION. THE WORTHY 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OBSERVATION I.E. III FIND THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY APPEARS TO BE PAPER COMPANY' WHILE THE COMPANY ON RECORD HAS A TURNOVER TO THE TUNE- OF CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF SAL E OF ITS MANUFACTURED GOODS AND ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIGNMENT SALE OF M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICAL LTD. (BIHAR) AND ALSO HAVING HUGE MACHINERY DULY REFLECTED IN FINAL ACCOUNTS SUCH AN OBSERVATIONS AR E APPEARS TO BE DUE TO ITS PRE-DETERMINED AND BIASED OPINION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. 4) UNDER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ACTION OF A.C. IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS WRONG AND FURTHER MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 87 828/- BY ENHANCING THE 3 ALLEGED G.P. RATE BY 1% IT IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS ARBITRARY CAPRIOUS AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE ACTION OF THE WORTHY CIT(APPEAL) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AND REJECTING THE GROUND WITHOUT ANALYZING THE LEGAL POSITION IT IS BASED ON ITS WR ONG OBSERVATIONS AND WITHOUT ANY SUBJECTIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. HENCE THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE NOT SUSTAINED. 5) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.(5) THE ADDI TION AS MADE IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 6) ASSESSEE CRAVES THE PRIVILEGE TO RAISE ANY OT HER LEGAL GROUNDS IN DUE COURSE OF HEARING 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. DURING THE HEARING LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 51 HAVING THE COPY OF S YNOPSIS OF THE ISSUES COPY OF COMPATION OF INCOME AND ACCOUNTS FO R THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2007 TOGETHER WITH AUDIT REPORTS COPY OF PROP OSAL FORWARDED BY AO TO HIGHER AUTHORITIES SEEKING PERMISSION FOR ISS UE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 INTEGRATING REASONS RECORDED THEREIN COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 27.3.2014; APPELLANTS LETTERS BEFORE THE AO; APPELLANTS LETTER DATED 26.3.2015 BEFORE THE AO; COPY OF WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS BEFORE CIT(A) IN APPEAL; COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 BEFORE THE CIT(A); COPY OF CASE LAWS REFERRED TO IN WRITTEN SU BMISSION EBFROE CIT(A) AND COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 1.2.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. HARMEET SINGH REFERRED TO IN SYNOPSIS. HE STATED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS 4 FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFO RE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSID ERED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THEM UNDER RULE 46A REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON THE SAID DATE OF DEPOSIT CAUSING SUCH ADDITION. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT LD. CIT( A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY APPEARS TO BE PAPER COMPANY W HILE THE COMPANY ON RECORD HAS A TURNOVER TO THE TUNE OF CRO RES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF ITS MANUFACTURED GOODS AND ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIGNMENT SALE OF M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICAL LD. (BIHAR) AND A LSO HAVING HUGE MACHINERY DULY REFLECTED IN FINAL ACCOUNTS SUCH AN OBSERVATIONS ARE APPEARS TO BE DUE TO ITS PER-DETERMINED AND BIASED OPINION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. IN V IEW OF ABOVE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THAT THAT TH E ISSUED IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ALS O UNDERTAKES THAT ASSESSEE WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE AO AND FULLY COOPE RATE WITH HIM AND WILL NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. 5. ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT LD. 5 COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CON TAINING PAGES NO. 1 TO 51 HAVING THE COPY OF SYNOPSIS OF THE ISSUES COPY OF COMPATION OF INCOME AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2007 TOGETHER WITH AUDIT REPORTS COPY OF PROPOSAL FORWARDED BY AO TO HIGHER AUTHORITIES SEEKING PERMISSION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 IN TEGRATING REASONS RECORDED THEREIN COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 27. 3.2014; APPELLANTS LETTERS BEFORE THE AO; APPELLANTS LETTER DATED 26.3.2015 BEFORE THE AO; COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE C IT(A) IN APPEAL; COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 BEFORE THE CIT(A) ; COPY OF CASE LAWS REFERRED TO IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE CIT(A ) AND COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 1.2.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. HA RMEET SINGH REFERRED TO IN SYNOPSIS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSES SEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AS WE LL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDE RED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. WE ALSO NOTE THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THEM UNDER RULE 46A REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON THE SAID DATE OF DEPOSIT CAUSING SUCH ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE DESE RVE TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECID E THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE FILED IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE ASSESS EE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO AND DID NOT SEEK ANY 6 UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORD INGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 29-11-2017. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29-11-2017 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITAT NEW DELHI.