The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), quashed order as there was recording different findings on same of set of evidence. The Respondent in the present appeal is Shri Laxmi Ram Khandelwal.
The main grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) while dealing with the case of M/s. Radha Govind Buildstate Private Limited held that the paper seized / impounded pertain to prior to the incorporation of company and directed to make addition in the hands of the related person and after that finding the case was re-opened in the case of the assessee.
Whereas, the CIT(A) in this case held that the papers in questions and transactions is part of company and this finding has been given by the CIT(A) without taking into consideration the findings of the CIT(A) in the case of the company and based on that finding proceeding was initiated in the case of the assessee.
The Departmental Representative further objected the findings that given by the CIT(A) is without asking reason and basis of re-opening vis a vis material on record. The CIT(A) did not find it proper to call for any remand report on the factual aspects of the case.Thus, the CIT(A) has not only violated the judicial consistency rule but has also violated the principles of natural justice.
The issue before the Tribunal is as to whether the finding recording by the CIT(A) in this case is justified based on the set of facts already analyzed and accepted considering the arguments and evidences considered in the case of M/s. Radha GovindBuildstate Private Limited.
In the case of company M/s. Radha Govind Buildstate Private Limited the CIT(A) held that these papers cannot be called dumb or rough papers by any stretch of imagination. There are specific noting and these can be correlated from one page to the other have been explained in detail by the director of the company. The CIT(A) further observed regarding the stock tally of land purchased and sold furnished during the appellant proceeding it is seen that no books of accounts of the company were found during the course of the survey nor were they produced subsequently.
Whereas in this case the CIT(A) has recorded completely opposite finding that the impounded papers found during the course of survey operation relates projections and estimates made prior to incorporation of company or at times in course of business or relates to transaction recorded in regular booksof accounts of company duly audited and audited accounts were filed along with year wise return(s) of income by assessee company.
A Coram comprising Sandeeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Rathod Kamlesh Jayatbhai, Accountant Member observed that “We are of the view that on the same of the set of evidence the CIT(A) recorded a complete different finding subsequently which is contrary to the facts, evidences and contentions raised earlier.”
“The order of CIT(A) order is not speaking and reasoned order but a cryptic against the fact already on record and the same is against the principles of the natural justice as he has given his finding without giving the opportunity to the AO to ascertain the correct fact therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of the CIT(A) in this case is not sustainable” the Tribunal noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
