2015 (6) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) excess production was made by the assessee - Held that - No evidence in the form of paper book has been filed in support of the grounds raised by the assessee. We, however, have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and we find that during the course of search, the search team conducted test run of Pouch Packaging Machine in order to ascertain the production of pouches of Pan Masala and arrived at a conclusion that excess production was made by the assessee i.e. M/s Durga Trading Company, proprietorship concern of Smt. Asha Chaurasia and the products were sold through other proprietorship concerns i.e. M/s Udai Traders and M/s R. P. Products, proprietorship concerns of Shri. Udai Chand Chaurasia and Shri. Raj Kumar Chaurasia respectively. It was also noticed by the search party that the assessee has made payment of excess excise duty. All these facts were not examined by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment in order to work out the excess production and sales out of the books of account. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly held that the assessment orders are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeals filed by three assessees against orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Delay in filing the appeals and condonation of the same.
- Ex-parte hearing due to non-appearance of the assessee.
- Examination of profits generated from production of Pan Masala.
- Directions to the Assessing Officer to reframe assessments.
- Excess production and sale of Pan Masala by various proprietorship concerns.
- Lack of evidence and submissions by the assessees.
- Confirmation of the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by three assessees against orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were delayed by 70 days, citing a family tragedy as the reason. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals for hearing.

2. Despite multiple adjournments requested by the assessee's counsel, no appearance was made on the hearing date. The Tribunal proceeded with an ex-parte hearing as per instructions to prioritize appeals against orders under section 263 of the Act.

3. The issue revolved around the examination of profits generated from the production of Pan Masala, specifically the excess production not accounted for by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine this issue, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

4. The search team found evidence of excess production and sale of Pan Masala by various proprietorship concerns linked to the assessees. The Assessing Officer had not considered these aspects while completing the assessments, leading to the Commissioner's decision that the orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.

5. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's orders, noting the lack of evidence and submissions by the assessees to support their grounds. The appeals were ultimately dismissed, upholding the directions to reframe the assessments in light of the unexamined excess production and sales of Pan Masala.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of thorough examination and consideration of all relevant factors in assessments to ensure accuracy and fairness in tax proceedings.