ACIT, SRIGANGANAGAR V. Shri Vinod Kumar Singhal, SADULSHAHAR

ITA 151/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 15123314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 151 / JU/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 11 THE A.C.I.T VS. S HRI VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL WARD - 2 P/O M/S SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISES SRIGANGANAGAR. 26, NEW DHAN MANDI, SADULSHAHAR PAN NO. ADUPS 0895 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE B Y : NONE (W/S) DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI N.A. JOSHI , DR DATE OF H EARIN G : 24 . 0 7 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 0 7 . 201 4 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA , J .M. TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) , BIKANER DATED 23 . 1 2 .20 1 3 PERTAINING TO A.Y 20 10 - 11 . 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE DESPITE BEING SERV ED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED . THEREFORE, W E HAVE HEARD T HE LD. D.R AT LENGTH AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE - RE SPONDENT, WE HAVE HEARD THE APPEAL EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE . 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 23.12.2013 IS REGARDING THE RELIEF OF RS. 11,58,785/ - WHICH HAS RESULTED BY APPLYING G.P. RATE OF 6.75% IN PLACE OF 8% APPLIED BY THE A.O. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R, WE HAVE FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED MAINLY IN EXECUTION OF SUPPLY CONTRACTS AND SOME EXTENT IN CIVIL WORKS. IN THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED N.P . RAT E OF 6.66% IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS AGAINST 5.93% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT SHOWING GROSS RECEIPTS AND NET PROFIT THIS YEAR AND SOME EARLIER YEARS IS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 3 OF HIS ORDER. A FTER 3 CONSIDERING THE SAID CHART, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE N.P. RATE DECLARED IN THIS YEAR IS BETTER THAT THE PRECEDING A.YS. AND EVEN AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ONCE THE PAST HISTORY IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS APPLIED, IT WOULD GIVE A FAIR ESTIMATION OF TR A DING INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. THIS IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW WH I CH IS BEING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THIS BENCH. FOR READY REFERENCE, TH E DECISION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF AJAY GOYAL VS. ITO REPORTED IN 99 TTJ 164 IS BEING REFERRED. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, NOTHING MORE CAN BE ADDED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST JUL Y , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM B ER DATED : 31 ST JULY , 201 4 VL/ - 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CI T BY ORDER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR