M/s Lotus Infrabuild Ltd., Barnala V. ITO, Barnala

ITA 1329/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6791 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1329/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014 M/S LOTUS INFRABUILD LTD., VS. THE ITO , RAIKOT ROAD, WARD-1, NEAR RAILWAY CROSSING, BARNALA. BARNALA. PAN NO. AABCL2654F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2016 OF CIT (APPEALS ) PATIALA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA IS AG AINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD THE AC TION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3). 2. THAT HE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED IN ARBITRARILY HO LDING THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 7% OF GROSS RECEIPTS SHOULD BE APPLIED ON GROSS RECEIP T OF RS. 13,60,57,060/- THEREBY CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 95,23,994/- 2. THE LD. AR, AT THE TIME OF HEARING ADDRESSING THE ISS UE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH IN 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YE AR, ITAT REJECTED THE SIMILAR GROUNDS, HOWEVER IN 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEA R, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD MERELY FOLLOWED THE OR DER OF THE ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THUS THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED ON MERIT, ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE BY ORDER DATED 05.11.2015 OF ITAT IN 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FILED . 3. THE LD. SR.DR, CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ITA 1329/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECEDENT AVAILABLE IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). WE NOTICE ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO HAS NOT CARED TO DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC OBJECTION S TO THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS MERELY FOLLO WED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING TH E JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES ARE REST ORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD. SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH BEING FOLLOWED IS R EPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE : 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTION, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER,-HAS LISTED OUT TH E REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY DISPUTED EACH OF THESE REASONS. THE SUBMIS SION'S OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NET HER BEEN MENTIONED OR ADJUDICATED UP BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE OF CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER'S ACTION IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT HE SHOUL D GIVE A REASONED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BY IT HAVE TO BE ADJ UDICATED UPON. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) F OR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCT., 2017. SD/- SD/- ( B.R.R.KUMAR) (D IVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.