M/s. Viraj Steels,, Pune v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,,

MA 14/PUN/2015 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1424524 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAGFV0774Q
Bench Pune
Appeal Number MA 14/PUN/2015
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Viraj Steels,, Pune
Respondent Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,,
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 27-05-2016
Next Hearing Date 27-05-2016
First Hearing Date 27-05-2016
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 20-02-2015
Judgment Text
] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM AND SHRI R.K.PANDA AM . / MA NO.14/PN/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.1027 & 1028/PN/2013) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. VIRAJ STEELS OFFICE NO.38 VATUSHREE COMPLEX SR.NO.587 MARKET YARD PUNE 411037 PAN : AAGFV0774Q . / APPLICANT V/S ADDL.CIT RANGE - 5 PUNE . ! / RESPONDENT . / MA NOS.21 & 22/PN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.1027 & 1028/PN/2013) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. VIRAJ STEELS OFFICE NO.38 VATUSHREE COMPLEX SR.NO.587 MARKET YARD PUNE 411037 PAN : AAGFV0774Q . / APPLICANT V/S ADDL.CIT RANGE - 5 PUNE . ! / RESPONDENT ' / APPLICANT BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN ! ' / RESPONDENT BY : S SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA AM : THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S REQUESTS THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES HAVE CREPT IN THE SAID ORDER. ' ) / DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2016 ' ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30.09.2016 2 MA NOS.14/PN/15 21 & 22/PN/2016 M.A.NO.14/PN/2015 (A.YRS. 2008-09 & 2009-10) : 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR T WO ASSESSMENT YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO SEPARATE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS VIDE M.A. NOS. 21 AND 22/PN/2016 FO R A.YRS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCOR DINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. M.A.NO.21/PN/2016 (A.Y. 2008-09) : 3. THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REA DS AS UNDER : 1. THE HON. A BENCH VIDE A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATE D 19.08.2014 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE SAID ORDER') DECIDED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL ALONGWITH THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE BEING A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE SAID ORDER THE APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE SAME MAY BE RECTIFIED BY MOD IFYING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL APPROPRIATELY. 2. PARA. 5 5.1 AND 5.2 OF THE SAID ORDER CONTAIN TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HON. TRIBUNAL . A READING OF THE SAME REVEALS THAT TWO IMPORTANT CONTENTIONS MADE BEFOR E THE HON. TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND A MENTION THEREIN AND AS SUCH RE MAINED TO BE CONSIDERED. THESE TWO CONTENTIONS ARE AS UNDER: I. THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED AND PRODUCED QUANTIT ATIVE RECORDS OF PURCHASES SALES AND STOCK AND RECONCILED EVER Y PURCHASE WITH SALE THEREOF. SUCH QUANTITY DATA ALSO FINDS MENTI ON IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THESE ARE PLACED AT PAGE 28 AND PAGES 1 39 TO 205 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THESE QUANTITATIVE RECORDS ARE NOT DI SPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. II. THE PURCHASE PRICE COMPARISON OF PURCHASES FROM BHA RAT STEEL COMPANY WITH M/S. BHULESHWAR STEELS & ALLOYS WAS PLACED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IS UNDISPUTED. THE SAME IS FOUND AT PAGES 15 & 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE CIT(A) HAS IMPLIEDLY ACC EPTED THE SAME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER AT PARA 4.4 OF HIS ORDER. 3. PARA 7 AND 7.1 OF THE SAID ORDER INTER ALIA CON TAIN THE SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER. THESE PARAGRAPHS DO NOT CON TAIN ANY REFERENCE TO THE QUANTITATIVE DATA OR TO THE RECONCILIATIONS AS M ENTIONED IN PARA 7(I) HEREINABOVE. FURTHER THESE PARAGRAPHS IGNORE THE PRI CE COMPARISON AS STATED IN PARA 7(II) HEREINABOVE AND INSTEAD INTER A LIA CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 3 MA NOS.14/PN/15 21 & 22/PN/2016 I. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE PRICE PAID TO M/S. BHA RAT STEEL COMPANY IS MORE THAN THE PRICE CHARGED BY OTHER TRAD ERS FOR PURCHASE OF IDENTICAL PRODUCTS ON SAME DATE. II. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON A SERIES OF DECISIONS HE HAS NOT ANSWERED THE BASIC QUERY R AISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID HIGHER PRICE TO BHARAT STEEL COMPANY FOR PURCHASE OF THE IDENTICAL P RODUCTS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT LOWER RATE FROM REPUTED COMPANIES O N THE SAME DAY. 4. BASED ON THESE OBSERVATIONS PARA 7 AND 7.1 OF THE SAID ORDER CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE HONB LE TRIBUNAL: I. SINCE THE PURCHASES FROM BHARAT STEEL COMPANY WERE HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PRICE PAID TO BHARAT STE EL COMPANY IS HIGHER THAN PRICE CHARGED BY OTHER TRADERS FOR THE SA ME PRODUCT ON THE SAME DATE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN OUR OPINION HA S DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AND ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. II. THIS IN OUR OPINION SHOWS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE NOT ABOVE BOARD AND THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO JUST RE LY ON VARIOUS DECISIONS WITHOUT GIVING THE REASONS. III. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE P RICE PAID TO THE PARTY IS HIGHER AS COMPARED TO SIMILAR PRODUCTS SUPPLIED BY OTHER PARTIES ON THE SAME DATE AND THE PARTY TO WHOM HIGHER PRICE HAS BEEN PAID IS NOT TRACEABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS TO PRODUCE THE PARTY OR GIVE HIS PRESENT ADDRE SS THEREFORE THE SO CALLED PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTY BECOME SUSPI CIOUS AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN OUR O PINION IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND GOIN G FOR ESTIMATION. IV. IN NONE OF THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF AN A SSESSEE WHO PAID HIGHER PRICE TO A PARTY WHICH IS NOT TRACEABLE OR WHICH COULD NOT BE PRODUCED HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. 5. IN THE COURSE OF MAKING SUCH ARGUMENTS THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAD DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF THE HONBLE BE NCH TO VARIOUS DECISIONS LISTED IN PARA 5.1 OF THE SAID ORDER AND HAD SPECIFICA LLY READ OUT PORTIONS OF THE DECISIONS LISTED AT SR. NOS.4 6 7 14 AND 15 IN SU PPORT OF ACCEPTING THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE AND THOSE LISTED AT SR. NO.9 AND 12 IN SUPPORT OF NON- REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. A CURSORY APPRAISAL OF THE SAID ORDER SHALL REVEAL T HAT THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT HAVE NOT BEEN DEALT WIT H AT ALL IN THE SAID ORDER. FURTHER ALL THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HAVE BEE N BRUSHED ASIDE BY AN ERRONEOUS OBSERVATION OF HIGHER PRICE PAYMENT. NON DE ALING WITH THESE CONTENTIONS WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER CON STITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THIS CONSTITUTES AN ERROR WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 4 MA NOS.14/PN/15 21 & 22/PN/2016 7. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE HON. TRIBUNAL REQUIRES RECTIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE ERROR S CITED ABOVE. AS SUCH THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE HON. TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY T HE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORDS AND TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER. 8. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. IDENTICAL CONTENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE M.A.NO.22/PN/2016. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. A PERUSAL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE A PPLICANT REFLECTS TWO ASPECTS. THE FIRST PART OF THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION IS AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT THE PURCHASES ARE RECONCILIABLE AND ALSO THE PURCHASE PRICE IS IN COMPARISON WITH THE PURCHASES MADE FROM OTHER CONCERNS. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPLICANT IN TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IS AGAINST NON CONSIDERATION OF CER TAIN DECISIONS WHICH WERE RELIED UPON DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING. BOTH THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES WERE HEARD AT LENGTH. A FTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AND AFTER HEARING THE AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS PURCHASE PRICE AND THE RECONCILIATION OF THE PURCHASE WITH THE SALES SINCE THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE APPLICANT HAVE NO MENTION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THOUGH THE SAME HAVE BEEN REFERRED IN THE FIRST PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TH EREFORE A MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH REQU IRES RECTIFICATION. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECALLED FOR FR ESH HEARING. SINCE THE REVENUE HAD ALSO FILED APPEALS FOR BOTH THE YEAR S ON THE SAME ISSUE THEREFORE WE RECALL THE ENTIRE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 19-08-2014. ALL THE 4 APPEALS ARE TO BE HEARD DENOVO B OTH ON MERITS 5 MA NOS.14/PN/15 21 & 22/PN/2016 AND THE LEGAL ASPECTS. ALL THE 4 APPEALS ARE FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 27-12-2016. ISSUE OF SEPARATE NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-09-2016. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PANDA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; / DATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. LRH'K ' # / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL PUNE 4. THE CI T - I II PUNE 5. 6 99: ) : IQ.KS / DR ITAT A PUNE; 6. = / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER 6 9 //TRUE COPY// ?@ 9 : / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) : IQ.KS / ITAT PUNE