Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Jbf Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 7 June, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES " I ", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, J.M. AND SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, A.M.
ITA No. : 5825/Mum/2009
Assessment Year : 2002-03
M/s. JBF Industries Limited ACIT-4(2),
C/o. Express Tower, Room No.669,
8th Floor, Nariman Point, AayakarBhavan, M. K. Road,
Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 020
PAN NO: AAACJ 2575 J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivaram
Respondent by : Shri Parthasarthi Naik
Date of hearing : 07.06.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2012
ORDER
Per N. K. BILLAIYA, A.M.:
With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 04.09.2009. The assessee has shown its grievance against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition of `.33,73,354/- and further the assessee is not satisfied with the rejection of the alternate plea taken by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that for the year under consideration the return of income declaring net loss of `.12,55,00,290/- and book loss of `.7,96,93,249/- u/s. 115JB was filed on 13.12.2002. After taking the return for scrutiny assessment, the assessment 2 ITA No. 5825/Mum/2009 M/s. JBF Industries Ltd.
u/s.143(3) was completed on 30.03.2005. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 21.06.2006. In reply to which, the assessee stated that the return filed on 30.12.2002 may be considered as the return in response to the notice u/s.148. The reasons for reopening the assessment are reproduced as under :-
"This case appears in the list of Indian Companies who had supplied goods to Iraq under the scheme of "Oil for Food Programme of UNO". The name of the assessee company appears at Sr. no.59 of the Volcker Committee Report submitted on 27.10.2005. It is alleged by the committee that the company paid "Illicit". Inland transportation fees/ASSF (After Sale Service Fee) to the Iraqui Authority. The assessee company vide its letter dt. 12.06.2006, confirmed the export order of humanitarian goods worth `.2,13,86,049/-. (CIF value `.5,17,352 Euros) to Iraq during the F.Y. 2001-02.
On perusal of the details available in this office, it is seen that the assessee has paid `.42,000 US $ as ASSF (After Sale Service Fee) to the Iraqi Government. This was in the nature of kick back contrary to the scheme of "Oil for Food Programme of UNO". The payments of kickbacks / bribe is prohibited by law and therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of explanation to Sec.27(1)) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and requires to be disallowed. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income to that extent has escaped assessment. As such the assessment needs to be reopened u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 to tax the escaped income. The case is fit for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act is issued to the assessee for A.Y. 2002-03."
3. During the course of the assessment proceedings the A.O. sought clarification on the payment of commission of `.33,73,354/- to M/s. AL- Basher trading Company, Jordan. After considering the submissions, the A.O. held that the payment was illicit payment through its agent in an unauthorised manner and added the commission so paid and completed the reassessment proceedings.
3 ITA No. 5825/Mum/2009M/s. JBF Industries Ltd.
4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee agitated this matter, but without any success and is now before us.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order and he has not considered the submissions and the documents submitted during the appellate proceedings.
6. The learned DR relied upon the assessment order.
7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the paper book filed by the assessee. After going through the index of the paper book, we find that the appellant has certified the documents from Sr. No. 1 to 11 containing 38 exhibits were before the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A). After going through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not deliberated on the detailed submissions/documents filed by the assessee before him. We agree with the submission of the learned Counsel that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is cryptic. We, therefore, restore this matter back to the files of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal after considering the submissions and documents, by a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee may file any other relevant document which he deems fit.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on this 13th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
( B. R. MITTAL ) ( N. K. BILLAIYA )
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MUMBAI, Dt: 13.06.2012
4 ITA No. 5825/Mum/2009
M/s. JBF Industries Ltd.
Copy forwarded to :
1. The Appellant,
2. The Respondent,
3. The C.I.T.
4. CIT (A)
5. The DR, - Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
//True Copy//
BY ORDER
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
Roshani