ITO, CHENNAI V. Suparasnath Promoters Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1471/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68766 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI IRS
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1471/(MDS)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD-VI(1), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. SUPARASNATH PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. TIMES PARTNER NO.58, PERAMBUR BARRACKS ROAD, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600 007. PAN AALCS7200E. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGERI, IRS , JCIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V AT CHENNAI, - - ITA 1471 OF 2013 2 DATED 15-3-2013. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSE SSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), READ WITH SECTION 1 44 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,180/-. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECT ION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144, TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS EXECUTING L ABOUR CONTRACT IN FAVOUR OF M/S.PACL INDIA LIMITED, FOR W HICH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD COLLECTED A GROSS RECEIPT OF ` 4,38,00,000/- DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 10 PER CENT OF THE ABOVE STATED GROSS COLLECTION AND DETERMINED THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 43,80,000/-. 3. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS), RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH-F, PASSED IN THE CASE RUPA PR OMOTERS PVT. LTD., RISHIKESH PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., RSM CONS TRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., AND RISHIKESH BUILDCON PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS. 2640, 2641, - - ITA 1471 OF 2013 3 2642 & 2643/DEL/2011, MODIFIED THE INCOME AT 2.24 P ER CENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND, THEREFORE, THIS SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL READ AS BELOW:- 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE EXTENT OF 2.24% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGAINST 10% OF GROSS RECEIPTS ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2.2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT FOR SUCH A HUGE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF WAGES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE WIT H BILLS/VOUCHERS. 2.3 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT TO CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF WAGES WAS MADE BY CASH, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. - - ITA 1471 OF 2013 4 2.4 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ONLY SHOWED CHEQUES ISSUED TO SOME OTHER COMPANIES WHICH INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE SOME SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENTS BUT DID NOT DEDUCT TAX. 3.1. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN COMMON ORDER IN ITA NOS. 2640, 2641, 2642 & 2643/DEL/2011 IN THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERNS IN THE CASES OF M/S RUPA PROMOTERS P. LTD, RISHIKESH PROPERTIES LTD, RSM CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD, RISHIKESH BUILDCON LTD FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. 3.2 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDER RELIED UPON THE ITATS ORDER IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE I S NOT BINDING SINCE THE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF M/S VISVAS PROMOTERS P. LTD (323 ITR 114) HELD THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNALS/COURTS A RE NOT BINDING. 6. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, NOBO DY WAS PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, INSPITE OF SERVICE OF - - ITA 1471 OF 2013 5 NOTICE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THIS A PPEAL EX- PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. WE HEARD SHRI T.N.BETGERI , THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE. 7. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE APPEAL CONSIDERED BY US THROUGH OUR ORDER OF EVEN D ATE IN ITA NO.1474(MDS)/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SANFORD BUILD ERS PVT. LTD. THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TH E REASONS LEADING TO THE ORDER HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY US IN D ETAIL IN THE SAID LEADING ORDER. AS EVERYTHING RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS REFLECTED IN THE LEADING ORD ER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY ON OUR PART TO REPEAT ALL THOSE DISCUSSIO NS ONCE AGAIN IN THE PRESENT ORDER. TO MAKE IT SHORT, WE RELY ON OUR OWN ORDER IN ITA NO.1474(MDS)/2013 OF EVEN DATE, PASSED IN TH E CASE OF M/S.SANFORD BUILDERS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI AND HOLD TH AT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN INTERFERING IN THE PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY IN HIS BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT. 8. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS REVERSED AND THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING - - ITA 1471 OF 2013 6 OFFICER, ESTIMATING THE INCOME AT 10 PER CENT OF TH E GROSS RECEIPTS, IS RESTORED. 9. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY THE 30 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.