M/s. Shivam Infrastructure, Surat V. The ACIT., Circle-9, Surat

ITA 1033/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8760 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

ITA.1033/07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A M M/S.SHIVAM INFRASTRUCTURE G-11,SUMITRA APARTMENT,KSHAMA SOC A.K.ROAD, SURAT. V/S . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE,SURAT. PAN NO.AARFS 9650 D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- NONE. RESPONDENT BY:- MR.M.C. PANDIT,SR.D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL. A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 10.11.2006 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-V, SURAT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE A.O. BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @ 5% ON GR OSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.7,22,84,373/- AND ALSO THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. FOR ALLOWING ONLY 20% OF THE EXPENSES OUT OF GROSS INCOME OF RS.58,569/- ON SALE OF GUNNY BAGS. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF T HE A.O. FOR ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @ 5% OF GROSS RECEIPTS WI THOUT ITA NO. 1033/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR :2003-04 ITA.1033-07 2 DEDUCTING THE VALUE OF MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE PRI NCIPAL CONTRACTOR. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 4. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES BE SET ASIDE AND ADDITIONS SO MADE BE D ELETED. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 15-3-2010 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. THIS NOTICE IS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS THAT LE FT PARTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED CORRECT/CHANGED ADDRESS TO THE TR IBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. 3. THE LAW ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT TH OSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WEL L KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONS IDERED IN 32 ITD 320 (DELHI) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. , WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED IN LI MINE. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI ) (D.C .AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22/ 03/2010. ITA.1033-07 3 AHMEDABAD, DATED :- 22-03-2010 PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD. ITA.1033-07 4