Venture Metal Products (P) Ltd., CHENNAI v. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1359/CHNY/2013 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 135921714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAEFV5234F
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1359/CHNY/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Venture Metal Products (P) Ltd., CHENNAI
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 08-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 04-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 04-10-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 17-06-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER] S.P.NO.54/MDS/2013 & I.T.A.NO.1359/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S VENTURE METAL PRODUCTS (P) LTD NO.173/3 KARAPAKKAM VILLAGE OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD CHENNAI 600 119 VS THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE III(4) CHENNAI [PAN AAEFV 5234F] (PETITIONER/APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 04-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-10-2013 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER THE INSTANT APPEAL AND THE STAY PETITION HAVE BEE N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THEY EM ANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II I CHENNAI DATED 29.4.2013 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.449/2010-2011/A.III IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A DOMESTIC COMPANY. IT IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF STEEL COFFEE MAKERS. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN ON 30.9.2008 DISCLOSING INCOME OF ` 72 60 800/-. THE SAME WAS SUMMARILY PROCESSED. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE F ILED A REVISED RETURN ON 30.3.2010. THIS TIME IT CLAIMED LOSS OF ` 8 22 648/-. 3. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT 24.8.2009. THE ASSESSEE WA S DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUDITOR. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER DATED 27.12.2010 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS OF ` 72 60 802/- REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF PROOF OR EVIDENCE LIKE APPROVAL FOREIGN INWARD REMITTANCE CERTIFICATES AN D REALIZATION OF EXPORT RECEIPTS. ALONGWITH THE SAME HE ADDED A S UM OF ` 32 45 800/- HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADDED BACK TDS N OT COLLECTED U/S 206 IN RESPECT OF SCRAP SALES. IN ADDITION TO THI S THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF ` 1 34 09 399/- TOWARDS JOB WORK CHARGES AND CLEARIN G AGENT CHARGES WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS SECTION (40(A)(IA) WOULD A PPLY. ALONGWITH THIS DUTIES AND TAXES PAYABLE ADDITION OF ` 7 28 910/- ALSO STOOD S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 3 -: DISALLOWED U/S 43B OF THE ACT. IN THIS MANNER TH E INCOME WAS ASSESSED AS ` 2 46 44 911/-. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. IN THE CO URSE THEREOF IT CHOSE TO FILE A PETITION DATED 19.4.20 13 UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE AS UNDER: 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE ACT AND INTERESTS OF JUSTICE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY THUS BE PLEASED TO ADMIT THE FOLLOWIN G AS ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN SO FAR AS THE DOCUMENTS ARE VITAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. (I) APPROVAL CERTIFICATE FROM GOVERNMENT OF INDIA A S A 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT. (ANNEXURE-1) (II) BANK CERTIFICATE OF EXPORT AND REALISATION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-2008 (ANNEXURE - 2 BOOK NO. 1) (III) INVOICES FOR CHARGES INCURRED FOR LABOUR WORK S FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-2008 (ANNEXURE - 3 BOOK NO.2) (IV) INVOICES FOR CHARGES INCURRED FOR CLEARING AGE NT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007- 2008 (ANNEXURE - 4 BOOK NO.3) (V) INVOICES FOR CHARGES INCURRED FOR JOB WORKS FO R THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-2008(ANNEXURE - 5 BOOK NO.4) (VI) FINANCIALS AND BALANCE-SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 (ANNEXURE - 6) (VII) DETAILS OF PAYMENT AND TAX DEDUCTION AND DEPOSIT OF TAX INTO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.200 5 TO 31.05.2006 (ANNEXURE - 7 ) S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 4 -: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS ARE CRUCIAL TO THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES AGITATED IN APPEALS. THE NON-FILING OF THE ABOVE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT IS FOR THE R EASON THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE- NEVER SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY AND NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT PRIOR T O THE FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENTS. THE NON-FILING OF THE DOCUMENTS THEREFORE IS NEITHER WILLFUL OR WANTON BUT ONLY F OR THE AFORESAID REASONS. GREAT PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE APP ELLANT IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT ADMITTED AND FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR REMAND REPORT AND ADJUDICATED THEREAFTER. THE B ALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE SAME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) BE PLEASED TO (I) ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SET OUT ABOVE; . (II) FORWARD THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND OBTAIN A REMAND REPORT THEREUPON; (III) ADJUDICATE UPON THE ABOVE; (IV) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT MA Y BE NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RENDER JUSTICE.. IT IS TO BE SEEN FROM THE CASE FILE THAT IN THE ORD ER UNDER CHALLENGE DATED 29.4.2013 THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ONLY REJEC TED THE ASSESSEES PETITION AFORESAID SEEKING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT ALSO HE HAS DISMISSED THE MAIN APPEAL ITSELF. ON MERITS HE HAS OBSERVED THAT DESPITE AVAILING SEVEN OPPORTUNITIES IN THE LO WER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY SUBMISS IONS. IN THIS MANNER THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R STAND AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 5 -: 5. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IT HAS BEEN STRO NGLY ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) H AS WRONGLY REJECTED ITS PETITION UNDER RULE 46A AFORESAID. IT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN QUESTION WAS LIABLE TO BE AD MITTED IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS NEVER CONFRONTED W ITH THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ADJOURNED THE MATTER FOR FINAL ARGUM ENTS ON 15.5.2013 BUT PASSED THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON 29.4.2013. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY A RGUMENT ASSAILING THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). IN THIS MANNER ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PRAYED FOR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE REVENUE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE CIT(A)S ORD ER UNDER CHALLENGE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 24.8.2009. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27.1 2.2010. MEANING THEREBY THAT BETWEEN THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE HAS BEEN A TIME GAP OF ONE YEAR AND FOUR S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 6 -: MONTHS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE NECESSARY CONF IRMATIONS VERIFICATIONS AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS ON RECORD SO AS TO RAISE THE CLAIMS OF EXPENSES AND DEDUCTIONS. SINCE NO EVIDENC E WAS FORTHCOMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ALL THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 8. THEREAFTER IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AS SESSEE CHOSE TO FILE THE AFORESAID PETITION SEEKING PERMIS SION TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. A PERUSAL OF THE CONTENTS THEREOF MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ONLY REASON PLEADED WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R NEVER SOUGHT THE CONCERNED DOCUMENTS AND NO OPPORTUNITY HAD BEEN GRA NTED IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT. THE CIT(A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA ADMISSION OF THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT AVAILED SEVEN ADJOURNMENTS FROM 1.9.2009 TO 24.12.2 010. IN VIEW THEREOF THE CIT(A) HAS TURNED DOWN THE PETITION. THOUGH IN THE HEARING BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY STRONGLY E MPHASIZED THAT THE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE FILED IN THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SOME DISPUTE GOING ON WITH ITS BANKER QUA FOREIGN INWARD REMITTANCE CERTIFICATES AND OTHER RE LEVANT PARTICULARS NO SUCH PLEA IS FORTHCOMING FROM THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE PETITION. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PRESENT IS NOT A STAGE TO DE CIDE ABOUT ADMISSION S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 7 -: OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AFRESH IN THE TRIBUNAL PRO CEEDINGS BUT THE ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY REJECTED THE PETITION UNDER RULE 46A. SINCE THE ARGUMENTS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE QUA BANK DISPUTE AND OTHER FACTORS ARE NOWHERE PLEA DED IN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PETITION THE SAME AMOUNTS TO I MPROVING THE VERSION STATED IN RULE 46A PETITION. IN OUR VIEW THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE REITERATE THAT RULE 46A QUA ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS CONFINED TO THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES STATED THEREIN AND DOES NOT APPLY IN EACH AND EVERY CASE. SO WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RE JECTED THE PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 9. THE THIRD ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER QU A FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NEVER SUPPLIED BY THE CIT(A ). AS PER THE ASSESSEE THIS HAS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE THE CASE BE REMITTED BACK. IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION THE REMAND REPORT ONLY CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED SEVEN OPPORTUNITIES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS PE R THE CIT(A)S ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME FROM 1.9 .2009 TO 27.12.2010 TO PRODUCE ON RECORD ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT TR ANSPIRES TO US FROM S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 8 -: THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 24.8.2009. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AS TO HOW THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION WE HOLD T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT WHICH ALSO STANDS CORROBORATED BY THE R EMAND REPORT NO MATERIAL PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO ITS INTEREST. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT IN EACH AND EVERY CASE THAT VIOLATIO N OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ENTITLE AN ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF. T HE SAME IS ONLY APPLICABLE IN A CASE WHERE MATERIAL PREJUDICE IS PR OVED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW TH E LATTER CONDITION DOES NOT STAND FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE. TH EREFORE THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 10. NOW WE COME TO THE LAST ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MAIN CASE HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.5.2013 A ND THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY REJECTED THE APPEAL ON 29.4.2013 ITSELF . HEREIN ALSO IT IS EVIDENT TO US THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILE D ANY MATERIAL IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT RULE 46A PETITION STOOD REJECTED THE REJECTION OF THE MAIN APPEAL HA S NOT CAUSED ANY INJUSTICE MORE SO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE I S A SPECIFIC S.P.NO.54/13 I.T.A.NO.1359/13 :- 9 -: OBSERVATION IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE THAT NO SU BMISSION HAD BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE QUA MERITS OF THE C ASE AT PAGE 10 OF THE ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO F AULT WITH THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE EVEN WE ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONT ENTION THAT THE CASE HAD BEEN ADJOURNED FOR 15.5.2013 BUT DISMISSE D ON 29.4.2013 ITSELF. HENCE THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO STANDS REJECTED. 11. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FAILS. IT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. SINCE THE MAIN APPEAL ITSELF HAS BEEN D ECIDED THE STAY PETITION HAS BEEN INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY THE 8 TH OF OCTOBER 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH OCTOBER 2013 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR