TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction to decide the issue again after considering the relevant points brought out by the AO in his order. Needless to say that the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA No.957/Del/2005, CO-26/Del/2007 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - Diva Singh, JM And Inturi Rama Rao, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR For the Respondent : None ORDER Per Diva Singh,JM. The present appeal is listed before us as a result of order dated 03.08.2012 in MA.No.-580/Del/2009 by which order dated 06.09.2007 in ITA no.957/Del/2005. in the first round was recalled by the Co-ordinate Bench. 2. By the present appeal filed by the Revenue t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the circumstances of the case and decide the case in favour of the appellant and accordingly the M.A. be allowed. 3.1. Convinced with the plea taken, the MA filed by the department was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench holding that there was a mistake in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in as much as it did not consider this contention of the Revenue based on the findings in the assessment order that assessee failed to justify the market rate vis-`-vis the purchase price paid to sister concern and this was one of the main reasons for fall in GP. The Coordinate Bench on a perusal of the order under challenge accepted that this fact has not been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench before arriving at a conclusion. Considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation to offer for the steep fall in g.p. The assessee company was also requested to justify the purchase price paid to sister concerns as under:- (i) Blue Stamping and Forging Ltd. ₹ 1,47,74,255/- (ii) Blue Forging Pvt. LTd ₹ 16,84,430/- The above mentioned two companies are persons referred to in Section 40A(2B). As mentioned above huge purchases have been made from sister concerns, the assessee company was requested to justify the market rate vis-`-vis purchase price paid to the two sister concerns. The assessee company in reply to this query has simply filed copies of purchase orders issued by the assessee for purchases from both the above mentioned companies. In sub-section (2) of Section 40A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m business. 5. Referring to the order of the CIT(A) which finding has been upheld by the ITAT which has been recalled it was pointed out that the impugned order does not make reference to those facts at all accordingly the finding arrived at not considering the relevant facts as per the precedent laid down by the ITAT in the Revenues MA the same infirmity on facts is glaring in the impugned order also. Accordingly it was his prayer that since the issue stands concluded wherein this fact has not been considered in the impugned order which was initially accepted by the ITAT thereafter reversed the only course of action is that the issue may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) who may be directed to consider the specific findings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the direction to decide the issue again after considering the relevant points brought out by the AO in his order. Needless to say that the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the result the Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. A perusal of the consolidated order dated 06.09.2007 by which the appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee were decided it is seen that the CO of the assessee was allowed and the MA was filed by the department only qua its appeal. We find that the CO has wrongly been listed by the Registry in the cause list and shown as pending as the order dated 06.09.2007 was concluded in assessees favour vide para 3, relying upon the order of the Tribunal in ase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
