K.Kannan, Thanjavur V. ACIT, Thanjavur

ITA 1541/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73661 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !' , # $! % BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1540/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ./ I.T.A. NO. 1541/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI K. KANNAN, NO.3/73, MAIN ROAD, THIRUCHITRAMBALAM, PATTUKKOTTAI TK, THANJAVUR 614 628 [PAN: AGSPK 9485 H] ( '& /APPELLANT) VS JOINT/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANJAVUR RANGE, THANJAVUR ( '('& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BHASHYAM , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 10-02-2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-02-2014 $) / O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE AFORESAID TWO APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2008-09 & 2009-10 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I MPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) - I.T.A. NOS. 1540/MDS/13 & 1541/MDS/13 2 TIRUCHIRAPALLI , DATED 26-02-2013 FOR THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS). BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF FORTY TWO DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTION F OR CONDONING DELAY CITING REASONS CAUSING DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE DELA Y IN FILING OF THE APPEALS HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED. IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS IS CONDONED. TH E APPEALS ARE ADMITTED TO BE HEARD AND DISPOSED-OFF ON MERITS. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. FOR THE AY. 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-09-2008 D ECLARING HIS TOTAL INCOME AS ` 8,60,200/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 14-08-2009. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE COMPLETE SET OF BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT PRODUCE BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC., TO SUBSTANTIATE THE E XPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE AY.2008-09, THE A SSESSEE I.T.A. NOS. 1540/MDS/13 & 1541/MDS/13 3 CLAIMED DIRECT EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF 88.63% OF THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF ` 6,84,72,441/- AND INDIRECT EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF 8.45% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE TOTAL EXP ENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 97.08% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION BASIS BY TAKING 8% OF TH E GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS NET OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DIS-AL LOWED 50% OF THE TOTAL CHIT DISCOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, FOR THE AY.2009-10, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ESTIMATION BASIS DETERMINED NE T PROFIT @8% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF ` 8,24,29,665/-. FOR THIS AY AS WELL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS-ALLOWED 50% OF THE CHIT DISCOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR BOTH THE AYS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BE FORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE TWO SEPARATE O RDERS BOTH DATED 26-02-2013, DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR THE RESPECTIVE AYS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPE ALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NOS. 1540/MDS/13 & 1541/MDS/13 4 NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPIT E SERVICE OF NOTICE. 3. SHRI GURU BHASHYAM, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS CATEGORIC FINDING OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BILLS/VOUCHERS, DETAILS OF THE CONTRACTS UNDERTAKEN ETC., TO ASCERTAIN THE INCOME AND GENUINENESS OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PROPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE ASSESSED @8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS NET OF DEPRECIATION, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE AGREED. NOW, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RETRACT FROM THE CONCESSION GIV EN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS O F THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FO R THE AYS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THERE IS CATEGORIC FINDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPE NDITURE CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED NET PROFI T AS 8% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED F OR THE ADDITION IN WRITING. AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITION, THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT BE I.T.A. NOS. 1540/MDS/13 & 1541/MDS/13 5 ALLOWED TO ASSAIL THE ADDITION IN APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. AS FAR AS DIS-ALLOWANCE OF 50% ON CHIT DISCOUNTS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON MONDAY, THE 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR