Income Tax Officer , Ward-9(1), Hyderabad V. Sri Mudigonda Srinivas Rao, Hyderabad

ITA 1465/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6009 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1465/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1) HYDERABAD. VS. MR. MUDIGONDA SRINIVASA RAO HYDERABAD. PAN AERPM5085J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. B. KURMI NAIDU FOR ASSESSEE : - NONE - DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 . 02 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .02.2016 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE TH E NET PROFIT AT 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS TURNOVER WHI CH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THOUGH THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 139( 4) OF THE I.T. ACT AND NON-EST IN THE EYE OF LAW. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 2 ITA.NO.1465/HYD/2013 MR. MUDIGONDA SRINIVASA RAO, HYDERABAD. ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.3,84,890 ON 30.09.2008. ON VERIFICATION OF DETAILS IN FORM NO.26AS, THE A.O. N OTICED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE RS.1,14,71,276 AS AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPTS ADMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ONLY RS.78,61,903. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. THO UGH THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 27.04.2010 , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR NOR FURNISH ANY INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, THE A.O. COMPLETE D THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND TREATED THE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.36 ,09,373 AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 2.1. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN THE WORK OF CIVIL CONTRACTS AND THAT TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN DAY-TO-DAY BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND ON THE BASIS OF THE TDS CERTIFICATES RECEIVED A ND THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE MAINTAINED BY HIM, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE PREPARED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED O N 30.09.2008 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.3,84,890 ON THE G ROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.78,61,903 AND A TDS OF RS.1,74,690 W AS CLAIMED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED REVISED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 DATED 26.04.2010 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.3,74,932 AS WAS ADMITTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED. BU T THE 3 ITA.NO.1465/HYD/2013 MR. MUDIGONDA SRINIVASA RAO, HYDERABAD. GROSS RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN AT RS.1,14,71,276 AND CLA IMED TDS OF RS.2,54,871. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE DIFFERENCE APPEARING IN FORM NO.26AS WAS NOT CORREC TED. IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE ALSO CLAI MED INCREASED EXPENDITURE. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEP T ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER FORM NO.26AS AND ALSO THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN HIS REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 10% ON THE BASIS OF VARIO US DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR CASES AS AGAIN ST THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 5.89%. AGAINST THI S ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHILE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DUE TO WHICH TH E A.O. WAS CONSTRAINED TO ESTIMATE THE ASSESSEES INC OME. THE A.O. INSTEAD OF TAKING COMPARABLE DATA IN THE C ASES OF SIMILAR ASSESSEES, INTO CONSIDERATION, HAS CONSIDER ED THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER FORM 26AS AS THE ASSES SEES RECEIPTS AND HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME THEREON. WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND R EPORT FROM THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE A.O. HAS REITERATED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS 4 ITA.NO.1465/HYD/2013 MR. MUDIGONDA SRINIVASA RAO, HYDERABAD. OBSERVED THAT THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AT 5.89% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.78,61,903 SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. BUT THE ITAT IN VARIOUS DECISIONS HAS HELD 8% OF THE GROSS PROFITS AS A REA SONABLE PROFIT EARNED BY SIMILAR ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED THE NET PROFIT AT 10%, AGAINST W HICH, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT I N THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS TO BE REASONABLE PROFIT. WE FIND THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE SAME AT HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF 10%. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.02.2016. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD - 9(1), BLOCK NO.2D, INCOME TAX TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD 4. 2. MR. MUDIGONDA SRINIVASA RAO, H.NO.16 - 11 - 722/1, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - V I , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - V I , HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6 . GUARD FILE