DABUR BRICKS CO. vs. ITO WARD-4,

Date of Hearing : 24-08-2016 Date of Order : 05-09-2016

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.

These 3 appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A) relating to assessment year 1999-2000, 1995-96 & 1997-98 respectively. Since the issues

ITA NOS.2679/Del/2003 & 1530-1531/Del/2004 involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 1999-2000).

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in wrongly upheld the rejection of books of accounts by the Ld. AO. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving any factual finding of fact regarding contention of the assessee that the AO erred in mentioning the correct number of bricks and quantity of coal found during survey and recorded in the books of accounts and regarding M/s Gehlot Building Materials Suppliers. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 210011/- made by the AO by estimating the profits of the appellant purely on arbitrary and imaginary basis. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in adopting GP rate of 15.34% instead of 12% taken by the AO. It amounts to enhancement by the Ld. CIT(A) which he did without giving any notice to the appellant and without adopting any procedures of law.

ITA NOS.2679/Del/2003 & 1530-1531/Del/2004

& 1531/Del/2004 (AY 1997-98) are exactly the same, hence, we are only reproducing the grounds of as under:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITO has erred in law and facts of the case.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) did not press the speaking order, so much so, he ignored all the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts submitted before him.

3. That Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that the Appellant did not apply for the copy of reasons recorded before the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. It is against the facts, as is evident from the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, who refused to supply the copy of reasons recorded.

4. That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) used the remand report of the Assessing Officer without confronting it to the appellant, which is illegal.

5. That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Income Tax Officer has wrongly held that 100 to 125 tonnes of coals is required for manufacturing of one round of bricks i.e. around 10 lacs of bricks. It is totally against the facts and also against the findings of jurisdictional High Court.

6. That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly held that no ITA NOS.2679/Del/2003 & 1530-1531/Del/2004 paper/documents were produced either before the Assessing Officer or before him. Actually all the papers regarding manufacturing of bricks and consumption of coals were produced before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

7. That the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that 2925000 bricks of Ist class only were manufactured during the period under consideration, is without any basis and against the facts. The figures are highly excessive. Further it is well known that during the manufacturing process, bricks of all category i.e. Ist, IInd, IIIrd and Rora are manufactured. The sale rate of different Categories of bricks are also different and rate adopted by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly excessive.

ITA NOS.2679/Del/2003 & 1530-1531/Del/2004

Any other relief that may be appropriate on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant shall pray as duty bound, forever.”

ITA NOS.2679/Del/2003 & 1530-1531/Del/2004

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/09/2016.