Ashok Nagda, UDAIPUR V. ITO, UDAIPUR

CO 24/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2198 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MOURYA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.445/JODH/2014 & C. O. 24/JODH/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), 6, NEW FATEHPURA, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN VS. SHRI.ASHOK NAGDA, PROP. M/S. PRECISION TECHNOCRAT & MARKETERS, 5- KUSHAL BAGH, AYAD, UDAIPUR PAN :AANPN5358H APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR REVENUE BY SHRI S. L. MOURYA, D.R. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, AR DATE OF HEARING: 08.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.03.16 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. : THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.445/JODH/2014 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE C. O. NO.24/JODH/2014 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.445/JODH/2014 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT (A), UDAIPUR PASSED IN APPEAL NO.144/UDR/2013-14 DATED 30-06-201 4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SHRI S. L. MOURYA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE AND SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LEARNED 2 ITA NO.445/JODH/2014 C. O. 24/JODH/2014 D.R. THAT THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL WA S AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO COMPUTE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING 0.75% AS AGAINST 5% ADOPTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ESTIMATION OF THE ASSESSEES NET PROFIT AS ALSO IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AT 0.75% AS AGAINST 0.53% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION HAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE HAS DE CLARED NET PROFIT RATE AT 0.65% AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 0.81%. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF THE F ACT THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO RESPONSE TO THE VARIOUS QUERIE S RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THA T THE NET PROFIT RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING 0.61%, ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AT 0.75% WAS EXCESS IVE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ARBITRARY. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON PER USAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS AVOIDED PRODUCTION OF 3 ITA NO.445/JODH/2014 C. O. 24/JODH/2014 THE VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF CONSUMABLES AND WAGES. FURTHER, RANDOM CHECKS OF THE CONSUMABLE ITE MS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN PRESENCE OF THE LEARNED AR O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEFECTS WERE NOTICED. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE S AME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NO T CALL FOR OUR INTERFERENCE. 4. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT, ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED, THE ESTIMATION IS TO BE DONE BY USING COMPARATIVE METHOD. THE ASSESSEES OWN RECORDS WOULD BE THE BES T COMPARISON. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN THE EARLIER TWO ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.65% FOR A Y 2009-10 AND 0.81% FOR A Y 2008-09. CONSIDERING THIS FACT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ESTI MATED THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 0.75%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FACT, HAS NOT SPECI FIED AS TO ON WHAT BASIS HE HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 5%. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR END. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMI SSED. 4 ITA NO.445/JODH/2014 C. O. 24/JODH/2014 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ST AND AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED: 08 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 08.03.16 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09.03.16 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 09.03.16 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 09.03. 16 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS NA SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER