The ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhavnagar V. Shri Savjibhai Vashrambhai Patel, Bhavnagar

ITA 1370/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 137020514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH , , , , ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# ' '' '. .. . . .. .%&' %&' %&' %&', , , , ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! , ) ) ) ) BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1370/AHD/2008 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005] ITO, WARD-2(3) BHAVNAGAR. /VS. SHRI SAVJIBHAI VASHRAMBHAI PATEL BHADEVANI SHERI, PIRCHHALA BHAVNAGAR. ( (( (+, +, +, +, / APPELLANT) ( (( (-.+, -.+, -.+, -.+, / RESPONDENT) /! 0 1 / REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV 34 0 1 / ASSESSEE BY : NONE 56 0 4(/ DATE OF HEARING : 18 TH JANUARY, 2012 7&8 0 4(/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2012 / O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 24.12.2007 FOR A.Y.20 04-2005. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV ES. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE REVENUES READ AS UNDER: ITA NO.1370/AHD/2008 -2- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM DIAMOND CUTTING AT RS.65,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.80,000/- ESTIMATED BY THE AO. 4. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). GROU ND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS BEEN DECIDED B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PARA -2.3, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE ME BY THE LD.AR ON B EHALF OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE AO HA MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.18,2420/- ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED. THE LD.AR HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.11.2006 ALONG WITH THE LIST OF KARIGARS WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT DETAILS WERE FURNISHED ONLY IN RESPECT OF LABOURERS WHO WOR KED FOR THE APPELLANT IN LAST PHASE WHEN THE BUSINESS CAME TO B E CLOSED. IT MEANS FULL DETAILS OF LABOUR EXPENSES WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. LOOKING TO THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND NATURE OF WORK, I ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM DIAMOND C UTTING WORK AT RS.65,000/- IN PLACE OF RS80,000/- AS PER AOS ESTI 8MATION OF INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS WHICH APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER SI DE. I HOLD IT REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM DIAMOND CUTTING AT RS.65,000/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE AO AT ESTIMATED AMOUNT O F RS.80,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.65,000/-. SINCE BOTH ARE ESTIMATE ONLY, WE FEEL THAT THE ESTIMATE M ADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REASONABLE AND HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTER FERE WITH HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS REJE CTED. 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.1370/AHD/2008 -3- 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL I NTRODUCED IN THE FIRM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,10,000/- 7. THE SECOND ISSUE IS REGARDING THE DELETION OF AD DITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.8,10,000/- IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCE D IN THE FORM. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AS PER PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MAT TER. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VERSUS PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES IN IT REFERENCE NO.241/1993. R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 3. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,855/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACC OUNT OF UNPAID LABOUR CHARGES. 9. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) T HAT THE AO HAS OTHERWISE NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE WITH REG ARD TO REASONABLENESS OF LABOUR EXPENSES CLAIMED. CONSIDERING THESE ASPE CTS AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE DECLINE TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND N O.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- ( /BHAVNESH SAINI) ! ! ! ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ' '' '. .. . . .. .%&' %&' %&' %&' /A.K. GARODIA) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ORDER PRONOUNCED: SD./- (KB)JM SD./-(AKG)AM ITA NO.1370/AHD/2008 -4- C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 06-03-2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER. : 13-03-2012 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S : 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. : 21.03.2012 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. : 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. : 26.03.2012 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. : 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. : 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER :