Pradeep Kumar Dhar, Balasore V. ITO, Balasore

ITA 157/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4630 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RABIN CHOUDHURY

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK [ , . . , BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , J M & SHRI B.P.JAIN , A M ./ ITA NO. 157 /CTK/201 4 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 9 - 20 10 ) SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DHAR, MITUANI, MAHARA SAHI, BALASORE. VS. ITO WARD - 1, BALASORE ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A GUPD 4724 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) [ /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI RA B IN CHOUDHURY / DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 TH MAY , 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 TH MA Y ,2015 / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV (J.M) : TH IS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) - I, BHUBANESWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 20 10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - (A) FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 7% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.9,62,080/ - FROM TRANSPORT BUSINESS. (B) FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @6% O N THE RECEIPT OF RS.1,57,05,317/ - FROM CIVIL WORK UNDER SUB - CONTRACT, WHICH IS ENTIRELY LABOUR ORIENTED WORKS INVOLVED, HENCE THE ORDERS OF THE FORUMS BELOW ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (C) FOR THAT, THE LD. A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WERE FAILED TO JUST IFY IN DETERMINATION OF PROFIT RATE ADOPTED IN THIS LINES OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON. MOREOVER, NO SUCH COMPARATIVE CASES POINTED OUT WHICH COULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT, TO DISCLOSE CORRECT INCOME. (D) FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LD. CTT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @1,5% ON RS.2,25,68,933/ - RECEIVED FROM STORAGE AGENCY BUSINESS, WHICH ITA NO. 157 /14 2 IS REGULATED BY THE STATE GOVT. DEPARTMENT, WHO IS ALSO FIXES THE PRICE, HENCE THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO SALE THE GOODS OVER AND ABOVE THE SAID PRICE FIXED AND EARNED EXCESS PROFIT, THUS THE ESTIMATION OF THE NET PROFIT BY THE FORUMS BELOW IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, HENCE THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. (E) FOR THAT, THE CHARGI NG OF INTEREST U/S. 234B, 244A(3) AND 234D OF THE IT ACT ARE NOT PROPER IN THE FACTS AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 2. TH IS APPEAL W AS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 2 8 - 5 - 2015 , BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED AD POST ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME GOT RETURNED. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. HENCE , WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX - PARTE QUA ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3 . ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED ALL TH E ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM JUDICIOUSLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. S INCE NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE SAME . 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON THIS 2 8 / 05 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) (B. P. JAIN) ( ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 2 8 /0 5 / 201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS ITA NO. 157 /14 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT , CUTTACK 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//