SHREE BRIJRAJ PLASTOFAB INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI v. DCIT WD 25(2), MUMBAI

ITSSA 19/MUM/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1919916 RSA 2010
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 19/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant SHREE BRIJRAJ PLASTOFAB INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT WD 25(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 19-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 17-10-2014
Next Hearing Date 17-10-2014
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 05-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA PRESIDENT AND B. R.BASKARAN (AM) . . . . ./I.T.(SS)A. NO.19/MUM/2010 ( / BLOCK PERIOD : 1990-91 TO 1999-2000) SHREE BRIJRAJ PLASTOFAB INDUSTRIES C/O PRAVINCHANDRA AND CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 601-A NIRANJAN BLDG. 99 MARINE DRIVE MUMBAI-400002. / VS. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 25(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN (OLD BLDG) M K ROAD MUMBAI-400020 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( !' / RESPONDENT) ./ $% ./ PAN/GIRNO.:AAAFB0954-G & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVIN N SHAH !' ' & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR ( ) ' * + / DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2014 - ' * + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.11.2014. / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-35 MUMBAI AND IT RE LATES TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE FIRM U/S 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE SEARCH UNDERT AKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN THE EARLIER ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS THE TRIBUNAL IT(SS)A 19/MUM/2010 2 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) S INCE THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE LEGAL ISSUE URGED BY THE ASSESSEE RE LATING TO THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. SINCE THIS ISSUE WENT TO THE ROUTE O F THE MATTER THE TRIBUNAL HAD TO RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO CALL FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORD FROM THE AO AND DECIDE THE SAME I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI (289 ITR 349). THE PRESENT ORDER WAS PA SSED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN THE SAID ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PARTNERS (SEARCHED PERSON) HAD SENT A LETTER DA TED 1.1.2001 ( AS PER LD CIT(A) WRONGLY TYPED AS 1.1.2000) TO THE AO OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM. THE LD CIT(A) FURNISHED A COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE ASSESS EE HEREIN. ON GOING THROUGH THE LETTER THE ASSESSEE FIRM CONTENDED THAT THE SA ID LETTER WAS MERE INTIMATION ABOUT THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH AND THE AO OF THE SEARCH PERSON DID NOT FORM ANY OPINION OR SATISFACT ION REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM THAT NECESSARY SATISFACTION WAS NOT R EACHED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCH PERSON AND HENCE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD W AS NOT VALID. 3. HOWEVER THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS WRITTEN LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSE SSEE FIRM TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE H EREIN AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS COULD BE OBTAINED AT ANY TIME. ACCORDINGLY THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS REACHE D SATISFACTION. HAVING DECIDED THE LEGAL ISSUE AS STATED ABOVE THE LD CIT (A) HELD THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO ADJUDICATE OTHER ISSUES. AGGRIEVED T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) WE NOTICE THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONING AS TO HOW THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON DID REFLECT THE SATISFACTION ABOUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WAS THAT THE ABOVE SAID LETTER WAS MERE INTIMATION AND IT DID NOT BRING ABOUT THE FACT OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. WE NOTICE THAT THE L D CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS THE SAID CONTENTION. THE LD A.R POINTED OUT BEFORE US THAT THE AO OF THE IT(SS)A 19/MUM/2010 3 SEARCHED PERSON MERELY LISTED OUT CERTAIN LOOSE PAP ERS AND THEY DO NOT REFLECT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FI RM. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER NOTICED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. ACCORDINGLY HE CONTENDED THAT THE LD CI T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ABOVE SAID LETTER BRINGS OUT THE S ATISFACTION OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) SH OULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE OTHER ISSUES ALSO SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED ALL THE ISSUES. 5. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SAID CONTENTIONS. IN OUR V IEW THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A REASONED ORDER ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. BY REFERRING TO CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS THE LD CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT THE AO HAS REACHED SATISFACTION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MAT ERIALS. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS R EQUIRED TO GIVE REASONS TO SUPPORT HIS DECISION WHICH IS ABSENT IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. FURTHER WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE OTHER ISSUES WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED HIM TO ADJUDICATE THE LEGAL G ROUND ONLY. AS STATED EARLIER THE ITAT HAD RESTORED THE LEGAL ISSUE TO THE FILE O F LD CIT(A) SINCE IT WENT TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND SINCE THE ADJUDICATION OF OT HER ISSUES WOULD DEPEND UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE SAID LEGAL ISSUE THE ITAT DID N OT ADJUDICATE THEM. IN THAT SCENARIO WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) SINCE THE ENTIRE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL. FURTHER IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SET ASIDE ONLY ONE I SSUE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING OTHER ISSUES AND THEN TO CONCLUDE THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEE N DISPOSED OF. 6. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A REASONED ORDER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE ISSUES NEED TO BE SET ASIDE TO HIS FIL E. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO HI S FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE SAID LEGAL ISSUE AND OR ANY OTHER LEGAL ISSUE THAT MAY URGED BEFORE HIM AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER BY GIVING PROP ER REASONING. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THE ABOVE SAID LEGAL ISSUE AND/ O R IN ANY OTHER LEGAL ISSUE THEN THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD ALSO ADJUDICATE OTHER ISSUES U RGED ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD. WE DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ACCORDINGLY. IT(SS)A 19/MUM/2010 4 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH NOV 2014 . - ( . /0 1 2 19TH NOV 2014 - ' 3) 4 SD/- SD/- ( . . / H.L. KARWA) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN ) / PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / ( ) MUMBAI: NOV 2014. . . ./ SRL SR. PS ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( :* ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. ( :* / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. ;< 3 !*= + = / ( ) / DR ITAT MUMBAI CONCERNED 3 > ) / GUARD FILE. ? ( / BY ORDER TRUE COPY @ $ (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) + = / ( ) /ITAT MUMBAI