ITO CORPORATE WARD 5(4), CHENNAI vs. RASI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2099/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 July 2019AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the assessee had provided purchase invoices and transport details, discharging its onus. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A as no additional material was filed before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made by the Assessing Officer concerning undisclosed stock. The matter was previously remitted back to the AO, who then made the addition. The CIT(A) deleted it after reviewing documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper opportunity to the Revenue, and if additional material was considered in violation of Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Hearing: 25.06.2019Pronounced: 18.07.2019

सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of hearing : 25.06.2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai dated 28.04.2017 and pertains to the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

Shri N. Gopinath, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that this is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the first round of litigation, this Tribunal has remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after

29,23,233 Pcs of undisclosed stock was to be added to the total income. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the material filed by the assessee found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not warranted. Referring to page 10 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) without giving any opportunity, examined the documents himself and found that goods under dispute were received by the assessee and exported the same. Therefore the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

3.

On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no additional material filed before the Ld.CIT(A). All the materials were filed before the Assessing Officer. Referring to the order of this Tribunal in the first round of litigation, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that this Tribunal by an order dated 08.05.2015, remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Referring to the Paper-book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has furnished the details of the lorry and the date of invoice before the Assessing Officer. The very same details were filed before the Ld.CIT(A). There is no fresh material filed before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence according to the Ld.Counsel for the Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Rules. Since all the details are furnished before the Assessing Officer, the Ld.CIT(A) found that the addition is unwarranted. Therefore he deleted the same.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. In the first round of litigation, this Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the assessee engaged itself in the business of export of cotton garments, fabrics, etc. The assessee filed the details of purchase invoices and the lorry details by which the same was transported. Export of goods is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer doubts the purchase alone. When the export is not in dispute, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion the assessee could not have exported the goods without any purchase.

5.

Now coming to the contention of the Ld.DR that the assessee had furnished additional material and therefore there is violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, a mere perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that no additional material was filed. The Ld.CIT(A) simply referred to the documents filed before the Assessing Officer and observed that the documents submitted clearly proves goods

under dispute has been received by the assessee and exported. It does not spoke anything about the additional material. The details of invoice and the details of transport by lorry are available before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A). Having furnished the details of the purchase invoice and the details of lorry before the Assessing Officer, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion the assessee has discharged its onus. Therefore the burden of proof shifts on the shoulders of the Revenue. The material available on record clearly establishes that there was purchase and export. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), accordingly the same is confirmed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the court on 18th July, 2019 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →