Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
ITA No.35/Rpr/2015 C.O. No.02/Rpr/16 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.35/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
ITO, Janjgir Chapma B.P.Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hatri Chowk, Sakti, Janjgir Champa, PAN/GIR No. AACCB7644N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Cross Objection No.02/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
B.P.Ispat Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Janjgir Chapma Vs. Hatri Chowk, Sakti, Janjgir Champa, PAN/GIR No. AACCB7644N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Revenue by : Shri O.P.Chaudhary, DR Assessee by : Shri G.S.Agrawal, AR
Date of Hearing : 18/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19/01/ 2018
O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-
Raipur, dated 07.11.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011 and the
assessee has filed cross objection.
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
ITA No.35/Rpr/2015 C.O. No.02/Rpr/16 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) without bringing any material on record in the form of Books of Accounts and Vouchers was justified to change the conclusion drawn by the AO for estimating the Net Profit.
Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was justified to decide the issue without affording the opportunity to the AO as to why all expenditure in P&L A/c are to be allowed.
Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was justified in passing the cryptic order by not showing the admission of any fresh evidence under Rule 46A.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited
company engaged in manufacturing of steel bars of different types from
ingots purchased from various steel plants. Return of income for the A.Y.
2010-11 was filed on 06-10-2010 declaring total income at NIL and loss of
Rs. 78.18,680/- carried forward to next following year. The case was
selected for scrutiny and therefore, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) and
143(1) OR 10-10-2011. Due to change of incumbent, fresh notice was issued
u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along-with questionnaire on 27-11-2012. As per the
Assessing Officer, in response to the above notices and notices issued on
subsequent dates, though the counsel of the assessee appeared from time
to time and made necessary compliances but books of account and other
documents are not produced though claimed to have been audited,
maintained and kept. In absence of books of account and other documents,
the AO could not verify the correctness of the book result and therefore,
ITA No.35/Rpr/2015 C.O. No.02/Rpr/16 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
after invoking provisions of section 145, he rejected the books of account
and completed the assessment by applying G.P. @ 6.99% on a turnover of
Rs. 2;34,88,651/-.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in
appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) considered the grounds raised by the
assessee and also the findings of the Assessing Officer and decided the issue
by modifying the order of the Assessing Officer and also the fact remains
that the CIT(A) has called for remand report and the assessee did not make
any cross objection to the report of the Assessing Office as referred in page
2 of the order. Therefore, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.
Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.
Ld D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal in
part without considering the fact that the assessee never produced the
books of account before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has not
provided an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the documents,
which the assessee relied on in the course of appellate proceedings.
Ld A.R. submitted that the assessee has maintained books of account
and produced the same which is referred in the written submission dated
19.3.2013 page 4 & 5 of PB and dated 6.11.2012 at page 6 & 7.
ITA No.35/Rpr/2015 C.O. No.02/Rpr/16 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
We, on perusal of the assessment order, found that the Assessing
Officer has given a categorical finding that the assessee has maintained the
books of account but they were not produced in the course of assessment
proceeding and ld A.R. substantiated that books of account are available.
Considering the apparent facts and materials on record, we are of the
opinion that the books of accounts are available with the assessee and the
fact that the revenue is challenging the action of the CIT(A) in not providing
the Assessing officer to verify the books of account. In such circumstances,
we are of the substantive opinion that the matter has to be remitted to the
Assessing Officer to verify and examine the books of account of the
assessee. The assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of
hearing.
As we have remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing officer in
the revenue’s appeal, the cross objection of the assessee is also restored to
the file of the Assessing Officer.
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by
the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19 /01/2018. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER
ITA No.35/Rpr/2015 C.O. No.02/Rpr/16 Assessment Year : 2010-2011
Raipur; Dated 19 /01/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : ITO, Janjgir Chapma 2. The Respondent. .P.Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Hatri Chowk, Sakti, Janjgir Champa, 3. The CIT(A)-Bilaspur 4. Pr.CIT-Bilaspur 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
BY ORDER,
SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Raipur