Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S Dabur Bricks Company

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.12.2011 ITA No. 510 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak …..Appellant vs. M/s Dabur Bricks Company …..Respondent CORAM: -HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: - Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Chabra, Advocate for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J This order shall dispose of the above mentionedIncome Tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) arising out the order dated23.3.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DelhiBench, Delhi in Income Tax Appeal No. 3417/DEL/2006,pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97 The revenue has claimed the following substantialquestions of law: - i)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the order of Hon’bleITAT has erred in law on relying upon the decisionof Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court in which no reference about the consumption of 20 M.T. ofcoal for production of one lac bricks? “ A survey under Section 133A of the Act wasconducted on the business premises of the assessee on11.8.1998 when certain loose papers were found. On the basisof loose papers, the Assessing Officer estimated that bricksworth Rs. 57,91,500/- were manufactured during the year.The assessee produced the books of accounts but such booksof accounts were rejected as unreliable. The return wasprocessed and additions made on the basis of consumption offire wood by applying net profit rate of 6.57%. TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short the ‘CIT(A)’)dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and relied upon ajudgment of this Court passed in CIT vs. Kumar Maaini 262ITR 380, wherein the revenue’s appeal raising substantialquestions of law was dismissed. Learned CIT(A) applied grossprofit rate of 14%, the rate claimed by the assessee in itsreturns. After making adjustment, the assessment wasconfirmed accordingly. The Tribunal affirmed the said order. The order relied upon and passed by the Tribunalhas been found to be suffering from perversity and has beenset aside by a separate order passed in ITA No. 107 of 2005dated 8.12.2011. Keeping in view the reasons recorded therein, theentire basis of the order passed by CIT(A) & Tribunal are alsonot sustainable. Consequently, the question of law as framed isanswered in favour of the revenue against the assessee. Thematter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appealafresh on merits according to law. Disposed of. (HEMANT GUPTA)JUDGE 8.12.2011preeti (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)JUDGE