Dineshbhai R.Brahmbhatt, v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3,, Anand

ITA 313/AHD/2008 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 31320514 RSA 2008
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 313/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Dineshbhai R.Brahmbhatt,
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-3,, Anand
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 06-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 02-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-08-2010
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 30-01-2008
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL A M SHRI DINESHBHAI R. BRAHMBHATT PROP. M/S LAXMI SALES R.P. HOUSE NR. RLY. CROSSING VALLABH VIDHYANAGAR-388 120. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ANAND. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI S. N. DIVATIA AR REVENUEBY:- SHRI R. K. DHANESTA DR O R D E R PER BENCH . THESE ARE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASST. YEAR 1998-1999 TO 2002-03 RAISING COMMON GROUNDS AND HEN CE THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.312/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 1998-99 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (1) ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMING THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. (2) FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES HAVE WRONGLY BEEN CONFIRMED :- (A) DIFFERENCE IN METALLURGICAL COKE RS.2 39 190 (B) DIFFERENCE IN HARD COKE RS.14 622 (C) FREIGHT & TRANSPORTATION RS.1 162 (D) BROKERAGE AND DALALI RS.78 585 ITA NOS.312 TO 316/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR :1998-99 TO 2002-03 ITA NO.312 -316/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 1998-99 TO 2002-03 2 ITA NO.313/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 3. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L :- (1) ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. (2) ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.8 24 518/- AS SUPPRESSED SALES OF METALLURGICAL COKE AND RS.35 450/- AS SUPP RESSED SALES OF HARD COKE MADE BY AO. (3) ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF COKE EXCEEDING 2%.. (4) ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. ITA NOS.314 -316/AHD/2008 ASST. YEARS 2000-01 -2002 -03 4. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L :- (1) ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMING RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE AO. (2) ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPR ESSED SALES OF METALLURGICAL COKE AND SUPPRESSED SALES OF HARD COKE MADE BY THE AO. (3) CONFIRMING OF ADDITIONS WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER. (4) CONFIRMING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF COKE. 5. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND NON- RESIDENT. HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN PIG-IRON C-1-CASTING AND COAL SINCE LONG. ASSESSMENTS WERE REOPENED BY I SSUING NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148(1) ON THE BASIS OF FINDING GIVEN IN ASS T. YEAR 2001-02. THE ADDITIONS AS PER GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US WERE MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AND REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS. ITA NO.312 -316/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 1998-99 TO 2002-03 3 IN PARA 2 OF HER ORDERS SHE MENTIONED THAT SEVERAL NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NONE ATTENDED ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED A PPELLATE ORDER INDICATED THAT LD. CIT(A) DID GIVE SEVERAL OPPORTUN ITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THEY REMAINED UNCOMPLIED. ACCORDINGLY SHE HAD RESOR TED TO PASS AN EX PARTE ORDER. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HER ORDER. THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS ARRI VED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER :- ASST. YEAR 1998-99 5. AS MENTIONED IN PRECEDING PARA THOUGH SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TIME AND AGAIN TO ATTEND THE HEARINGS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DO SO LEADING ONE TO THE IMPRESSION THAT HE HAS NO OBJECT ION TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. SINCE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHED LI GHT ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT LENGTH I SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CO NFIRM THE SAME. ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS IN GREAT DETAIL EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE OF LOSS OF STOCK CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EVIDENCES OF THE AO AR E BASED ON SOLID REASONING. HE HAS BROUGHT OUT ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CLAIM OF PERCENTAGE OF SHORTAGE. IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO MEETING OUT TH E AOS CONCLUSION THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS CONFIRMED. ASST. YEAR 2000-2001 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS IN GREAT DETAIL EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE OF LOSS OF STOCK CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EVIDENCES OF THE AO AR E BASED ON SOLID REASONING. HE HAS BROUGHT OUT ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CLAIM OF PERCENTAGE OF SHORTAGE. IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO MEETING OUT TH E AOS CONCLUSION THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO.312 -316/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 1998-99 TO 2002-03 4 ASST. YEAR 2001-2002 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS IN GREAT DETAIL EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE OF LOSS OF STOCK CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EVIDENCES OF THE AO AR E BASED ON SOLID REASONING. HE HAS BROUGHT OUT ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CLAIM OF PERCENTAGE OF SHORTAGE. IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO MEETING OUT TH E AOS CONCLUSION THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS CONFIRMED. 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AO AND DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SAME. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE APPELLANT WAS AWARE OF FACT THAT M/S SATHAVAHANA ISPAT LTD. HAD WRITTEN OFF THIS AMOUNT. THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE CLEARED ITS LIABILITY OR SHOULD HAVE DECLARED THIS INCOME U/S 4192) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE DID NEITHER BUT CONTINUED TO CARRY THIS AM OUNT AS A LIABILITY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SINCE THE APPELLANT VOLUNTARILY FAILED TO WRITE BACK THIS AMOUNT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THE SAME IS THERE FORE CONFIRMED. ASST. YEAR 2002-2003 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS IN GREAT DETAIL EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE OF LOSS OF STOCK CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EVIDENCES OF THE AO AR E BASED ON SOLID REASONING. HE HAS BROUGHT OUT ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CLAIM OF PERCENTAGE OF SHORTAGE. IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO MEETING OUT TH E AOS CONCLUSION THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS CONFIRMED. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE W AS NOT ABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WRITTEN SUBMISSION S WERE FILED WHICH WERE IGNORED BY LD. CIT(A) AND NON-SPEAKING ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERIT S AND SHE HAS TAKEN THE ADVERSE VIEW MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE PERSONALL Y DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HER. 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A ) TO PASS A WELL ITA NO.312 -316/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 1998-99 TO 2002-03 5 REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER ON EACH GROUND OF APPEA L RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HER AND GIVING HER OWN REASONING AS TO WHY HE/SHE PREFERS TO AGREE EITHER WITH THE AO OR WITH ASSESSE E. IT WILL NOT BE LEGALLY CORRECT TO DISMISS THE APPEALS WITHOUT GIVING REASO NING ON EACH GROUND AND SUBMISSIONS IF ANY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS WOULD BE IN FACT VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WHILE D ISPOSING OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THE FACTS RELATING TO EACH I SSUE SHOULD BE SORTED OUT DESCRIBED AND LEGAL POSITION RELATING TO THE ISSUE SHOULD BE CLEARLY DESCRIBED ALONG WITH REASONS AS TO WHY THE PARTICUL AR VIEW IS CHOSEN BY LD. CIT(A). EVEN IN A CASE WHERE AN EX PARTE ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED THE POSITION OF LAW IS THAT THE REASONING ON EACH GROUN D RAISED BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GIVEN. 9. ACCORDINGLY WE RESTORE ALL THE FIVE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THEM AFRESH AFTER PASSING A REASONED A ND SPEAKING ORDER. 10. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/8/2010 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD DATED : 6/8/2010 MAHATA/- ITA NO.312 -316/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 1998-99 TO 2002-03 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD