Jet Associates, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

CO 41/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8455 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA IRS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 93/MDS/2013 AND C.O.NO. 41/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(3), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. JET ASSOCIATES, NO.12, GANAPATHY STREET, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI 14. PAN AADFJ9067B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : DR. S. MOHARANA, IRS, CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND APRIL, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND APRIL, 2013 O R D E R PER BENCH THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OB JECTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009-10. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I AT CHE NNAI, DATED ITA 93 & CO 41/13 :- 2 -: 22.10.2012. THEY ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPL ETED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL R EADS AS BELOW : 1.B THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT T HE A.O. HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT VARIOUS DEFAULTS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS LIKE HUGE UNPROVED EXPENDITURE, DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS T O SISTER CONCERNS VIOLATION U/S 40A(3), VIOLATION OF TDS PROVISIONS ETC., NATURE OF BUSINESS, PAST INCOME AN D DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AT ` 2,03,29,927 (WHICH ORDER WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE) AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 8% AND THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED TAX AUDI T REPORT, IT HAD FILED THE DETAILS OF PAST PERFORMANCE, WHICH CA NNOT BE IGNORED WHILE ESTIMATING THE PROFIT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEAR. IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FOUND THAT ASSESSED PROFIT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS 2 .55% AND ITA 93 & CO 41/13 :- 3 -: FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THERE BEFORE, THE RESULTS WERE IN NEGATIVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILS, THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON LOWER SIDE IN A CONSISTENT MANNER. HE FURTHE R FOUND THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER A SSESSMENT YEARS WERE APPROVED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS AND THERE FORE THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT IN A CO NSCIOUS MANNER. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AL SO HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STATED THE BASIS ON WHICH HE HAS ESTIMATED THE TOTAL INCOME AT 8%. IT IS IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ES TIMATED THE INCOME AT 4%. 4. WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APP EALS) IN DETERMINING THE PROFIT RATE AT 4%. THE REASONS POI NTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ARE SELF-SPEAKI NG. HIS ORDER IS, THEREFORE CONFIRMED ON THIS POINT. 5. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) AT 4% OF THE GROSS TURNOVER IS ON HIGH ER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBJECTS TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.2 34A AND 234B. ITA 93 & CO 41/13 :- 4 -: AS SEEN IN PARAGRAPH ABOVE, WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRM ED THE PROFIT RATE ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPE ALS). AS FAR AS LEVY OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED, IT IS ONLY CONSEQ UENTIAL. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND T HE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 22 ND OF APRIL, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND APRIL, 2013 MPO* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.