Shri Amit Digvijay Singh, Nashik v. Dy.CIT, Cen.Cir.1, Nashik, Nashik

ITA 491/PUN/2011 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 49124514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABCH4310G
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 491/PUN/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Shri Amit Digvijay Singh, Nashik
Respondent Dy.CIT, Cen.Cir.1, Nashik, Nashik
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-07-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 20-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR. NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 525/PN/11 2002 - 03 HOTEL SAI SIDDI (P) LTD. THE WEST ENG. PATHARDI PHATA MUMBAI AGRA HIGHWAY NASIK PAN AABCH4310G DY. CIT CENT. CIR. 1 NASIK 2. 526/PN/11 2003 - 04 - DO - - DO - 3. 527/PN/11 2004 - 05 - DO - - DO - 4. 528/PN/11 2005 - 06 - DO - - DO - 5. 529/PN/11 2006 - 07 - DO - - DO - 6. 530/PN/11 2007 - 08 - DO - - DO - 7. 531/PN/11 2008 - 09 - DO - - DO - 8. 532/PN/11 2005 - 06 DEEGESH HOTELS PVT.LTD. DURGESH RESIDENCY APPT. ANANDWALLI GANGAPUR ROAD NASIK\ PAN AABCD 5874D - DO - 9. 491/PN/11 2002 - 03 SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH SAME AS ABOVE PAN AQZPS2999F - DO - 10. 492/PN/11 2003 - 0 4 - DO - - DO - 11. 493/PN/11 2004 - 05 - DO - - DO - 12. 486/PN/11 2002 - 03 DEEGESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD. SAME AS ABOVE PAN AABCD5873E - DO - 13. 48 7 /PN/11 200 3 - 0 4 - DO - - DO - 14. 48 8 /PN/11 200 4 - 0 5 - DO - - DO - 15. 489/ PN /11 2005 - 06 - DO - - DO - APPELLANTS BY: SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA AND SHRI SANJAY SINGH 2 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP ORDER PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS RELATE TO SAME GROUP OF ASSESSEES RAISE CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES. SO THEY WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE MAIN ISSUES IN ALL THE SE APPEALS ARE WITH REGARDS TO INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT AND NON-SPE AKING ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 2. SO LET US DEAL WITH THE APPEALS COVERING THE IS SUES OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 249(4)(A) AND 249(4)(B) OF THE A CT. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY BOTH THESE SECTIONS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 249(4) NO APPEAL UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE ADMITTED UNLESS AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL (A) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM; OR (B) WHERE NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX WHEN WAS PAYABLE BY HIM; THE PROVISION OF SECTION 249 DEALS WITH FORM OF APP EAL AND LIMITATION. CLAUSE (4) OF SECTION 249 DEALS WITH AD MISSION OF APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 249(4 )(A) NO APPEAL SHALL BE ADMITTED UNLESS AT THE TIME OF FILI NG OF THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE IN COME RETURNED BY HIM. AS PER PROVISION OF SEC. 249(4)(B ) THE APPEAL WILL NOT BE ADMITTED UNLESS AT THE TIME OF F ILING THE 3 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TH E AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX WHICH WAS PAYABLE BY HIM AT T HE TIME OF FILING AN APPEAL. THERE IS ALSO PROVISO TO SECTION 249(4) ACCORDING TO WHICH ON AN APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF THE CIT(A) MAY FOR ANY GO OD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING EXEMPT HIM FROM THE OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSES (B) OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT. ON PLAIN READING THE P ROVISO TO SEC. 249(4) IS APPLICABLE TO A SITUATION WHERE NO R ETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS SUPP OSED TO PAY AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX WH ICH WAS PAYABLE BY HIM. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF APPE AL UNDER CHAPTER XX HE SHOULD HAVE PAID AT LEAST ADMI TTED TAX PAYABLE BEFORE THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. THE OPE NING WORDS ARE CLEAR ENOUGH TO COVER ALL KINDS OF APPEAL CONTEMPLATED UNDER CHAPTER XX AND RESTRICTED MEANIN G CANNOT BE GIVEN OR FOR THAT MATTER SECTION CANNOT BE READ DOWN. IN CASE THERE IS A DISPUTE WITH REGARDS TO P AYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX THEN THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO CIT(A) TO DECIDE ON MERIT FOR VERIFICATION OF PAYMENTS OF TAX ON ADMITTED INCOME AS HELD BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. DEIVAMALAR (2009) 309 ITR 249 (MAD). HAVING ANALYZED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 249(4) LET US DEAL WITH EACH APPEAL AS UNDER. 4 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP 3. IN ITA NO. 525/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID TAX EQUAL TO ADVANCE TAX PAYA BLE BY HIM. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE INCURRED LOSS IN THE YEAR SO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(B) AR E NOT ATTRACTED. SO THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED RETU RN NOR HE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO ADVANCE TAX BECAUSE TH E SAME WAS NOT PAYABLE BY HIM. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSE D THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARDS TO CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOSS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION HAS BEEN SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. HAVING HEARD BOTH TH E PARTIES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE APPEAL IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE LOSS INCURRED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HE WAS NOT LIA BLE TO PAY TAX OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX AS STIPULATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4 )(B) OF THE ACT. IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(B) ARE NOT APPLICABLE THE APPEAL MAY BE ADMI TTED AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERIT. SINCE WE ARE REMITTING THE MATTER ON A TECHNICAL ISSUE WE ARE R EFRAINING TO COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE ON HAND. IN T HE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 5 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP 4. IN ITA NO. 526. 491 530 AND 531/PN/2011 FOR A.Y . 2003-04 2002-03 21007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY THE IS SUE IS THE SAME AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 525/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03. FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING THE REASONING GIVEN IN PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER THIS APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH S IMILAR DIRECTIONS AS CONTAINED IN ITA NO. 525/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03. 5. IN ITA NO. 527/PN//2011 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 2. SO THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE ONLY I SSUE REMAINED FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARDS TO PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LEA RNED AR THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 18-10-2004 AND THE TAX DUE WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON 28-9-2004 I.E. PRIOR T O FILING OF THE RETURN. SO THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249 (4)(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARDS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PHOTOCOPY OF DOCUMENT SHOWING THE CASH RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 16 06 000/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 CLAIMED TO BE FILED BE FORE THE CIT(A). SO THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 16 06 000/- ON 29-9-2004 APPE AL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. ALTERNATIVELY LEARNED A R SUBMITTED THAT LET THIS FACT BE VERIFIED IN DETAIL BY THE CIT(A) AND IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX ON 29-9- 2004 AMOUNTING TO RS. 16 06 000/- BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN I.E. 18-10-2004 THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 6 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP 249(4)(A) SHOULD NOT BE COME IN HIS WAY AND THE CIT (A) SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING D UE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER IS RESTO RED TO CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE AT HAND ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF ISSUE AT H AND. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN APPEAL NO. 486 487 492 AND 493/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED AS IN ITA NO. 527/PN/ 2011 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WITH REGARDS TO PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABO VE THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) W ITH A SIMILAR DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDI NG DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEES. SINCE WE A RE RESTORING THE ISSUE AT HAND ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF ISSUE AT HAND. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN ITA NO. 528/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 THE ASSE SSEE HAS OPPOSED INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249 (4)((A) 7 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 249(4)(B)) OF THE ACT. AT TH E TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 2-12-2006 AND A REVISED RETURN WAS FIL ED ON 15-3-2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID TAX DUE ON T HE RETURNED INCOME AND THE SAID TAX WAS ADJUSTED AGAIN ST THE OUTSTANDING RECOVERY FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA. SO T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) HAVE WRONGLY BEEN I NVOKED AND APPEAL BE ADMITTED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEAR NED DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS FACT NEEDS VERIFICATION. SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS MATTER TO CIT( A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE I T IS FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECT. 249(4)(A) HAS NOT PROP ERLY BEEN INVOKED THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE HEARD ON MERITS . SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE AT HAND ON A PRELI MINARY ISSUE WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF ISS UE AT HAND. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN ITA NO. 488 AND 489/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 SIMILAR GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED AS IN ITA NO . 528/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF TAX AMOUNTS TO TAX PA ID. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 7 OF THIS ORDER THE M ATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A SIMI LAR 8 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE AR E RESTORING THE ISSUE AT HAND ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF ISSUE AT HAND. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN ITA NO. 529/PN/2011 THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAV E BEEN RAISED. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE ASSESSMENT EXPARTE MADE BY A.O. UNDER S. 144 RWS. 1 53-A OF THE ACT. THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT SO MADE WAS CONF IRMED BY LD. C.I.T. (A) WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE AND SU FFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO. THE APPEAL ORDER INDICATES THAT ONLY O NE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON 21-02- 2011 WHILE APPEAL ORDER IS PASSED ON 24-02-2011. THIS IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL ORDERS FOR ALL THE YEARS THAT IS FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 TOTAL 7 A PPEALS WERE DECIDED ON 24-02-2011 FOR WHICH HEARING WAS GR ANTED ON 21/22-022011 EVEN THOUGH IT IS MENTIONED THAT EA RLIER HEARINGS WERE GRANTED. THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE HAVE BEEN GROSSLY VIOLATED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS UNDER BOUNDEN DUTY TO PASS A 'SPEAKING ORDER' IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S 250(6) OF THE ACT. THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN CONFIRMING THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE A.O . WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE APPE AL BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. C.I.T. (A) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF S. 250 (6) OF THE ACT TO DO COMPLETE JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 41 76 058/- BEING 20% OF OPERATING EXPENSES OF RS. 6 49 37 270/WITHOUT ASSIG NING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING DISALLOWANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE & GENERAL EXPENSES OF 9 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP RS. 2 73 07 120/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. TH E DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1 09 08 623 /- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN TAW THE LD. CIT. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES OF RS. 1 85 37 178/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN TAW THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS OF CURRENT LIABILITI ES OF RS. 8 44 97 902/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE INCREASE IN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 1 46 65 119/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEFERRED TAX LIABILITY OF RS. 1 2 93 941/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 10) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. C.IT. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN C ONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 40 (A) OF RS. 4 51 77 991/- WIT HOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 11) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 43-8 OF RS. 6 91 794/- WITHOU T ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 12. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.IT. (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40-A (3) OF RS. 4 45 297/- WI THOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 10 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP 13) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S. 234-A. 234-B AN D 234- C IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IT BE QUASHED. 9.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 1. THE SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9.2. WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER GROUNDS THE STAND O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKI NG ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250( 6) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS I SSUE AND DECIDED THE SAME AS UNDER: 4. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 2 41 76 058/- AT 20% OF OPERATING EXPENSES OF RS. 6 49 37 270/- ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2 73 07 120/- DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1 09 08 623/- AND INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES OF RS. 1 85 37 178/- (TOTALING TO RS. 12 08 80 291/-) (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 8 44 97 902/- TOWARDS PROVISION AND CURRENT LIABILITIES. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 1 46 65 119/- TOWARDS INCREASE IN UNSECURED LOAN. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 12 93 941/- 8 44 97 902/- TOWARDS DEFERRED TAX LIABILITY AS PER PROVISION TO SECTION 43B. (5) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 4 51 77 991/- TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A). (6) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 8 6 91 794/- TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B. (7) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO ERRED IN ADDING RS. 4 45 297/- TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS (8) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE AO HAS ERRED IN NOT SETTING OF THE ADDITIONS TOWARDS ALLEGED EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AGAINST ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. 11 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES AND ADDITIONS FOR THE DETAILED REASONS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT SORE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS OF IN COME DETAILS OF EXPENSES CURRENT LIABILITY NOT SUBSTANT IATED AND UNSECURED LOANS NOT PROPERLY SUPPORTED. BEFORE ME CERTAIN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ON 31-3- 2010 THAT WERE FORWARDED TO THE OAO FOR VERIFICATIO N. THE A.O SOUGHT CERTAIN CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE APPELLANT WHICH THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE A.O I N THIS REGARDS THE A .O THEREFORE REPORTED VIDE LETT ER DATED 12-10-2010 THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN TOTALL Y NON CO-OPERATIVE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ITS SAME ATTITUDE CONTINUES DURING THE VERIFICA TION OF THE PARTICULARS THAT WERE FILED DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AO THEREFORE VIDE LETTER DATED 4- `11- 2010 SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS REMAINED SILE NT AND DID NOT BOTHER TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE AO FOR SEEKING CLARIFICATIONS FROM IT AS DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A). IN THIS BACKGROUND IT IS F OUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE A.O IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T ORDER WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE THEREIN AND WHICH ARE CHALLENGED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE ME. EXCEPT MAKING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 3-10-2010 NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE ME BY THE LEARNED AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE A.O HAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE TOTALING TO RS. 17 09 18 102/- AND NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED THERE IN THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE A.O ARE BASED ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E SAME ARE CONFIRMED. CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF MERITS AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 9.3. IN THIS BACKGROUND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE M ATTER BE RESTORED TO CIT(A) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS P ER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE 12 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US BY T HE LEARNED DR. 9.4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT. SECTION 250(6 ) READS AS UNDER: 250(6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHA LL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) THE CIT(A) IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SIEMENS ENGINEERING AN D MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA (1976 ) AIR SC 1785 OBSERVED AS UNDER: WHERE AN AUTHORITY MAKES AN ORDER IN EXERCISE OF I TS QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS IT MUST RECORD ITS REASON IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER IT MAKES. IN OTHER WORDS EVE RY QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER MUST BE SUPPORTED BY REASONS. IT MEANS THAT THE CIT(A) BEING QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHO RITY IS SUPPOSED TO SPELL OUT THE REASONS IN HIS ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THE MATTER T O THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE SO WE ARE REFRAINING TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE GR OUNDS. 13 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 532/PN/2011 SIMILAR GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 529/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WITH REGARDS TO NON-SPEAKING ORDER. FOR THE REASONS DIS CUSSED IN PARA 9 OF THIS ORDER THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A SIMILAR DIRECTION TO DECI DE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEES. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE AT HAND ON A PRELI MINARY ISSUE WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF ISS UE AT HAND. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 10. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS DECISION WE DO NOT SU PPORT THE APATHY OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE APATHY TOWARDS LOWER AUTHOR ITIES CANNOT BE ENCOURAGED IN ANY MANNER. AT THE SAME TI ME THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PASS NO N- SPEAKING ORDER. APART FROM THIS AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING CANNOT BE SACRIFICED FOR ANY REASONS WHICH IS THE E SSENCE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN RESPONSE TO B ENCH QUERY WITH REGARDS TO IMPOSING COST FOR APATHY TOWA RDS PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE LEARNE D AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT HE WOULD NOT MIND IF ANY COST IS IMPOSED FOR APATHY TOWARDS PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HAVING SAID SO WE OBSERVE THAT THE 14 ITA NO.525 TO 531/PN/2011 SAI SIDDI GROUP ASSESSEE HAS BEEN APATHETIC TOWARDS THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE IMPOSE COST OF RS. 10 000/- IN EACH APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE TO BE PAID TO DEPARTMENT. 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST IMPOSED BY US. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 29 TH JULY 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I NASIK 4. THE CIT I NASIK 5. THE D.R ITAT A BENCH PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL