TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-6-2012 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, JJ. Assessee by Shri Ravi Mall, AR Revenue by Shri Sat Pal Singh, DR O R D E R A.N.Pahuja:- This appeal filed on 20.04.2012 by the assessee against an order dated 29th February, 2012 of the ld. CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi, raises the following grounds:- 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in disposing of the appeal ex-parte on the ground that in response to the notices issued there had been no compliance by the assessee/appellant. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate, no such notices were ever served on the assessee, an AOP which stood dissolved on 31.03.2008. 1.2 That the learned CIT(A) has failed to comprehend that, though notices as were sent through speed post at the addresses mentioned in the memo of appeal, could not be served on the assessee/appellant, since an AOP dissolved on 31.03.2008 and as such notices of hearing ought to have been either issued to any member of the AOP appellant or even to the Chartered Accountant, who was the authorized representative of the assessee an AOP. 1.3 That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, the assessee an AOP was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) had no application in respect of the appeal filed by the assessee u/s 246 A of the Income Tax Act. 6. That in any case and without prejudice the learned CIT(A) in order to render the substantial justice ought to have issued at least one notice of hearing to the authorized representative Shri Manoj Gupta who was appearing before the Assessing Officer in the course of proceedings before him so as to ensure that whether or not the appellant was really interested in pursuing the appeal. It is therefore prayed the order of the learned CIT(A) to be set aside and he be directed to hear the appeal on merits and in the alternative it is prayed the income returned by the assessee be accepted and the additions made by the Assessing Officer was untenable both on facts and in law. It be further held that the interest levied u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act was not leviable. 2. Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs. 46,61,920/-filed on 30.09.2008 by the assessee, trading in liquor, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the vendors, so the quantity furnished by the assessee is to be believed genuine. 2.1 Thereafter, referring to minimum retail price given in the Haryana Liquor Policy of various liquor brands and purchase prices of country liquor, IMFL and beer, the AO concluded in para 2.3 of the assessment order that average percentage margin from country liquor was 69.88%. Since the assessee made purchase of country liquor at Rs. 2,57,69,713/-, the AO estimated total sale from country liquor at Rs. 8,55,56,816/-. Likewise, the AO worked out sale of IMFL at Rs. 25,07,64,289/- and sale of beer at Rs. 2,99,35,765/- in para 2.4 2.5 of the assessment order on the basis of purchases made by the assessee. Accordingly, total sales were worked out to Rs. 37,96,41,139/- as against sale of Rs. 29,72,98,954/- reflected by the assessee. On the basis of data collected by the assessee, the AO served a draft assessment order on the assessee on 27th December, 2010. In response the assessee replied as under:- Sir, the state government of Haryana has only used the term minimum sales price in the Haryana Excise Policy 2007-08 which is in no way can be said to be the selling price. These prices are only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2782833 5.10 14209841.62 12.11 33700109.08 15 41742495 Total 25769709.52 68967509.08 82311195.00 3. On appeal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) despite notice dated 20th October, 2011, 27th January, 2012 and 14th February, 2012 nor filed any written submissions. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) concluded as under:- 2. The appeal of the appellant was fixed for hearing on 29.11.2011 vide notice u/s 250 dated 20.10.2011. The notice was sent through speed post at the address given in Form No.35 filed on 27.01.2011. None attended on that date. On 27.01.2012 another notice was issued fixing the appeal for hearing on 07.02.2012. This notice was also not complied with. Final notice dated 14.02.2012 has been issued through speed post, fixing the case for hearing on 29.02.2012. On this date also none attended nor has any application for adjournment been filed. No written submissions have been made in support of the appeal. 3. In CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (1977) 118 ITR 461 (Supreme Court), the Hon ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmunication thereof by the quasi- judicial authorities has been read as an integral part of the concept of fair procedure and is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and minimizes arbitrariness in the decision-making process. We may reiterate that a decision does not merely mean the conclusion . It embraces within its fold the reasons forming basis for the conclusion. [Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab,(1995)1SCC 760(SC)]. It is well settled that reasons are the links between the material on record and the conclusion arrived at by the court and the appellate authority being a quasi judicial authority, the order passed by him should show that he has applied his mind and taken into consideration the basic requirements germane to the issue [V.N. Purushothaman vs. Ag.ITO (1984) 149 ITR 120 (Ker.)]. 5.1 A Co-ordinate Branch in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 74 ITD 339 (Ahd), in identical circumstances, observed as under: 3. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made before us. The impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
