AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
No one appeared on behalf of the Assessee in spite of service. Affidavit-of-Service filed be kept on record.
The subject matter of challenge is a judgment and order dated 26th July, 2013 by which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue on the ground of delay. They refused to condone the delay of 62 days relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of office of the Post Master Vs. Living Media India Ltd. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue has come up in appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act.
Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant drew our attention to a judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd., wherein the following view was taken.
Looking to the amount of tax involved in this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have decided the matter on the merits. In all such cases where there is delay on the part of the Department, we request the High Court to consider imposing costs but certainly it should examine the cases on the merits and should not dispose of cases merely on the ground of delay, particularly when huge stakes are involved.
The judgment relied upon by the learned Tribunal for the purpose of refusing to condone the delay is also a judgment of the Supreme Court and the said judgment is later in point of time.
The assessee is a Government Company. The grounds of appeal on merits are as follows:
II. For that the learned Tribunal erred in law by not deciding the ground on merits deleting the expenses of Rs. 11,34,000/- being the expenses of associated companies which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal);
III. For that the learned Tribunal erred in law by not deciding the ground on merits of deleting the addition of Rs. 44,21,868/- being the prior period of expenses which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
IV. For that the learned Tribunal erred in law by not deciding the ground on merits by deleting addition of Rs. 4,63,858/- made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
V. For that the learned Tribunal erred in law by not deciding the ground on merits by deleting the addition of Rs. 3,44,76,729/- on account of short and excess stock which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
It would appear that Ground No. V involves a major amount of a sum of Rs. 3.45 crores approximately. The deletion made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) under challenge was made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on the basis of the following reasoning:
However, the gross profit estimated by the Assessing Officer as an amount of Rs. 3,44,76,729/- is made an presumption by the Assessing Officer. The appellant is a Government of India Enterprise. There are regular checks and unrecorded sale is not possible. The Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record or instance of unrecorded sale by the appellant. The shortage of stock is a regular business loss and has to be allowed to the appellant. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,44,76,729/- is hereby deleted.
The additions made by the Assessing Officer is on the following basis:
Stock Short of Iron Ore- 31371 M.T. (Rs. 58,03,635/-) and Short stock of Sponge Iron-444 M.t. (Rs. 34,56,794/-): In case stock is short, it clearly shows that the goods has been either manufactured or sold. The assessee has not provided any specific reply. So, it has been considered that the assessee has sold the stock but has not recognized in the books. So, the gross profit, sale value less cost of production of materials needs to be computed. Considering the same gross profit has been computed below:
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
Therefore, the gross profit of Rs. 3,44,76,729/- computed on sale of iron ore has been treated to have earned on stock sold and has been added to the total income.
We have undertaken the aforesaid exercise in deference to the judgment cited by Mr. Bhowmik. Since we are not inclined to admit the appeal, we refrain from expressing any opinion. The facts and circumstances appearing from the records indicated above are enough in our view why we should refrain from admitting the appeal.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is also disposed of accordingly.