M/S Shyam Sunder (Haryana) Industries Pvt. Ltd. Hisar v. Cit Rohtak And Another

ITA No. 148 of 201 _|- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.148 of 2013 (O&M)Date of decision:19.03.2015) M/s Shyam Sunder (Haryana) Industries Pvt. Ltd. Hisar Versus ...Appellant CIT Rohtak and another ...Respondents AND ITA No.149 of 2013 (O&M) M/s Shyam Sunder (Haryana) Industries Pvt. Ltd. Hisar Versus ...Appellant CIT Rohtak and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S,. SAANDHAWALIAI Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr.Advocate withMr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (ORAL) CM No.1 333CII of 2013 CM is allowed. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 daysin refiling the appeal is condoned. ITA No.148 of 2013 1]These appeals are filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal modifying the orders of the Commissioner of Income ITA No. 148 of 201_)_ Tax (Appeals) (for short “CIT” (Appeals). The appeals arise out of thecommon order of the Tribunal and are disposed of by this common orderand judgment. The appeals pertain to the assessment years 1999-2000 and2000-01 respectively. 2 The appellant contends that the following substantial questionsot law arise for determination of this Court: (1)Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the principle ofnatural justice has been violated and the impugned orders aretherefore legally unsustainable in the eyes of law?(11)Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of theId. Authorities below in assuming the figure of 20% despite comingto the conclusion that there have been sales returns is legallyunsustainable in the eyes of law? (111)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, theId. Authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in rejecting the copy of thebooks of accounts produced by the appellant which were seizedby thecentral excise department? (iv)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, theId. Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that there have beenundisclosed purchases, without there being any proof for the same? (v)Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the impugnedorders Annexure A-1| to A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of lain view of the fact the impugned orders have been passed in violationof the mandate prescribed under section 158B of the Act. 3,After having gone through the order of the CIT (Appeals) andorder of the Tribunal, we find it necessary to permit the appellant to raisethe following further question of law: “Whether the orders of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside onthe ground that they contain no reasons whatsoever.” 4 The appeal is admitted on this additional question of law, ITA No. 148 of 201 -3- As we have admitted the appeal on this ground, it is notnecessary at this stage to consider the other grounds raised in the appeal.5 The Assessing Officer added an amount of =12,50,000/- to theappellant's income in respect ofUchantisales and an amount of=19 lacs onaccount of stock otVanaspati Gheereturned to the appellant as SuppressedSales. 6 The CIT (Appeals) after dealing with the issues in considerabledetail deleted the additional amount of|=12,50,000/- in respect ofUchantisales and estimated the stock of returnedVanaspati Gheeat 20% otf the totalamount allegedly returned. In this regard, the CIT (Appeals) for instancetook into consideration the figures of the previous years. TiThe Tribunal, however, reduced this to 5% but withoutfurnishing any reasons for the same. Similarly, the Tribunal has set aside theorder of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the amount of|L12.5 lacs as undisclosedinvestment by merely stating that in its view the addition by the AssessingOfficer was reasonable.. vaIn these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside.The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision. Needless to saythat the Tribunal will consider the material on record.| (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 19.03.2015Meenu TiThe Tribunal, however, reduced this to 5% but withoutfurnishing any reasons for the same. Similarly, the Tribunal has set aside theorder of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the amount of|L12.5 lacs as undisclosedinvestment by merely stating that in its view the addition by the AssessingOfficer was reasonable.. vaIn these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside.The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision. Needless to saythat the Tribunal will consider the material on record.| (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 19.03.2015Meenu (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)JUDGE