M/s Durga Construction Co., Kurukshetra V. ACIT, Kurukshetra

ITA 1155/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77181 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DALJIT SINGH
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1155/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S DURGA CONSTRUCTION CO., VS THE ACIT., C/O AGGARWAL IRON STORE, CIRCLE, SARASWATI ROAD, KURUKSHETRA. PEHOWA, KURUKSHETRA. PAN : AAEFD2855Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DALJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 10.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.07.2014 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KARNAL DAT ED 18.07.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE A CT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AGAINST FACTS AND LAW. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME AT RS. 14,63,062/- IN THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT RS. 14,50,062/-. 2 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. THOUGH HE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE MUSTER ROLLS ALON GWITH COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES, DETAILS OF STOCK REGISTERS MONTH-WIS E AND DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO PRODUCE THE SAID EVIDENCE BUT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE MUSTER ROLLS AND ALSO COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM SALARY/WAGES W ERE PAID. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BILLS/VOUCHERS O F RAW MATERIAL AND OTHER ASSETS PURCHASED. NO DETAILS OF STOCK MONTH-WISE O R SITE-WISE WAS FURNISHED AND NO STOCK REGISTER WAS PRODUCED. IN V IEW THEREOF, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED UNDER SECT ION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 12 % IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN PRABHAT KUMAR, CONTRACTOR OF SIRSA VS CIT IN ITA NO. 293 OF 2008 AND COMPUTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 12%. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% TO WORK OUT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION M ADE BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REJECTI ON OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 7. SHRI DALJIT SINGH APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONT ENTIONS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINS T THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT IS ONLY AGITATED BY THE ESTIMA TION OF INCOME IN ITS 3 HANDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ENLI STED VARIOUS DEFECTS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO E XPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE AND IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 9. THE SECOND STEP AFTER THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT IS THE ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE C ONTRACTOR BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% WHICH WAS REDUCED TO 8% BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS THE REQUISITE DETAILS BUT SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT T O RESTRICT THE NP RATE TO BE APPLIED TO 7% TO DETERMINE THE INCOME IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. THE BALANCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY,2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH JULY,2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.