TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's appeals on the legal ground of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to act as the assessee's AO. The same was, however, on it being moved by the Revenue u/s. 254(2) of the Act, recalled by the Tribunal vide it's order dated 29/04/2022 upon finding it's earlier adjudication as grossly and gravely mistaken, for being decided afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. There has, however, been no representation by or on behalf of the assessee in the ensuing proceedings before the Tribunal on each of the other three occasions on which the matter was posted for hearing, nor even a request for adjournment despite service of notices of hearing, with, rather, Smt. Uma Prashar Advocate (in whose name Vakalatnama is on record) from the chamber of Shri G.N. Purohit, ld. Sr. Advocate, who represented the matter before the first appellate authority, as indeed before the Tribunal, both in the first round as well as in the rectification proceedings, personally informing the Bench on 21/07/2022 that they are withdrawing their Vakalatnama. Hearing was, accordingly, proceeded with ex-parte the assessee-appellant. 3. We have heard the party before us, and perused the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) dated 19/9/2011 issued by Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur ('CIT', for short) (PB pgs. 21-25) in pursuance of the Notification dated 31/07/2001 u/s. 120(1)/(2) of the Act, vide which it was clarified that Jt./Adl. CIT heading the Ranges shall have no powers of an Assessing Officer. The same was, however, to no effect inasmuch as the same was passed oblivious of the Notification No. 267, dated 17/09/2001 by the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) vesting the power of the AO with the Jt./Adl. CIT who stood authorised u/s. 120(4)(b) (reproduced in part at para 2D as the assessee's submissions dated 18/04/2012/PB pgs.7-12), which in the instant case was by the CIT-1, Jabalpur vide his order dated 30/11/2006. The same is in conformity with the law, which stood amended to include Jt./Adl. CIT in sec. 2(7A) of the Act, defining the AO, by Finance Act, 2007 w.r.e.f. 01/6/1994. The order u/ss. 127 (1) & (3) of the Act transferring the assessee's case from Asstt. CIT, Circle Chhindwara to Addl. CIT, Range Chhindwara had been passed by CIT-1, Jabalpur on 31/01/2006 (PB pgs.8-19). In view thereof, the ld. CIT(A) found the Addl. CIT, Chhindwara as fully competent to act as the assessee's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pari materia to it's Gd. 1 before him. Further, though we have upheld his findings, finding the assessee's plea as without substance, we clarify the clear position of law of the same as being not a subject matter of an appeal under the Act, and not liable to be resolved through the appellate procedure under the Act. We decide accordingly. 5. Vide Ground 2, the assessee assails the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s. 143(2) stands issued by the AO, i.e., Addl. CIT, Chhindwara, after 30/11/2006, i.e., the date of order u/s. 120(4)(b) by the CIT-1, Jabalpur, authorising him to act as an AO. True, there is no issue of notice u/s. 143(2) for AY 2004-05 on or after 30/11/2006. How could, one wonders, that invalidate the notice u/s. 143(2) dated 17/3/2005 by the Asst. CIT, Circle Chhindwara, i.e., the incumbent AO, duly served on the assessee on 18/3/2005; the said notice being also within time and, thus, a valid notice seeking to assume jurisdiction to frame an assessment u/s. 143(3), and which has been by the incumbent AO on 26/12/2006, again noted by the ld. CIT(A) at pg.5 of his order. Though the assessee's Ground speaks of notice u/s. 142(1) as well, the same is not a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of trading profit. The addition is, thus, well founded with no rebuttal at any stage and, accordingly, confirmed. 7.1 Ground 4 impugns an addition for Rs. 5,03,985/- on account of debit notes raised on the assessee by it's buyers, M/s. Betul Oil and Foods Ltd. and M/s. Itasri Oils Ltd., found debited in the assessee's accounts on 01/4/2003, i.e., the first day of the relevant previous year. The debit notes raised on the assessee (also refer para 6 above), were found by him to be usually followed by debit notes raised in response by the assessee, i.e., where and to the extent it did not fully accept the claim/s made on it, and were accordingly credited to the purchase account (with corresponding debit to the buyer's account). The impugned debits, which did not bear any corresponding credit/s, were, on enquiry, found to be in respect of supplies (sales) made from May, 2002 to March 27, 2003. The same, therefore, though accounted for during the current year, in fact, pertained to an earlier year. No evidence toward the same being in respect of a dispute and, thus, settled later, i.e., during the current year, was adduced in respect of the contention of the loss having crystalized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....003, information as on 01/4/2003, to the extent it relates to conditions obtaining as on 31/3/2003, would need to be taken into account for the purpose of the estimate as on 31/03/2003. This would also make it incumbent on the assessee to justify, in addition to what had transpired on 01/4/2003, its claim in full, so that an expenditure which, as on 01/4/2003, i.e., the date on which the estimate on the basis of the available information was to be made, was estimated at nil, was finally determined in full at the impugned sum of Rs. 5.04 lacs on 01/4/2003 itself, representing the total amount of debit notes-in-hand as on 31/03/2003. The assessee's claim is, clearly, without any basis on facts, as indeed in law. We therefore uphold the disallowance as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 7.3 We decide accordingly. 8. Ground 5 is in respect of shortage of 1.32 Qtnls., valued at Rs. 2,342, made and confirmed for the same reasons that informed the addition qua shortage in soybean seed account (Gd.3), since confirmed by us (refer para 6). The facts and circumstances being the same, we have no reason to take a different view in the matter and, accordingly, confirm the addition. We decide ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition in view of the facts on record, adverting to s.40A(2)(a). In our clear view, the impugned addition is in fact for Rs. 3,31,924. This is as reduction in the claimed loss by Rs. 2,02,400 is to be in any case given effect to in view of the addition in the value of closing stock for AY 2004-05 and, thus, in income for AY 2004-05, i.e., an independent matter. The assessee has not led any evidence to substantiate it's claim of the quantity sold to NIPL, it's sister concern, being of a cheaper variety. Where so, it's purchase price would also be at a lower rate, i.e., vis-a-vis that sold to third parties. It has also not been shown that the sister concern deals in the business of the cheaper variety/s of ginned cotton. In our view, the sale rate for the goods sold for the cotton sold to NIPL should, accordingly, be estimated at the average rate for the third parties which, as per the data available, works to Rs. 5976.02 per qtl., as under: (Amt. in Rs./Qty. in Qtls.) Amount Quantity Rate Remarks Sale 1,06,51,185 1830.00 (12671892 minus 2020707) NIPL 8,95,030 197.45 4532.95 Others 97,56,155 1632.55 5976....