DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata, Paschim Medinipur V. Kartick Chandra Dhar, Paschim Medinipur

ITA 1595/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 159523514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PRAMANIK
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 44AD; 194C

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE . .. . . .. . , , , , , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , #$ SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % % % % / ITA NO . 1595/KOL/2010 &' ()/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 (+, / APPELLANT ) D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, MIDNAPORE. - & - - VERSUS - . (./+,/ RESPONDENT ) KARTICK CHANDRA DHAR (PAN: ACPPD 7849 H) +, 0 1 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A.K.PRAMANIK, SR.DR ./+, 0 1 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S.M.SURANA #2 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) )) ), , , , #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 26.04.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.20,98,718/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATING THE INCOME @5% AND DISALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CARRIAGE CHARGES AND WA GES. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOM E @ 8% ON GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. ALTHOUGH THE SEC 44AD DOES NOT APPLY IN T HIS CASE I.E. (GROSS TURNOVER EXCEEDS RS.40 LAKHS). 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.32,27,450/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CARRIAGE CHARGES AND WAGES, U/ S 40(A)(IA) FOR WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194C OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. 4. THE REDUCTION OF DEMAND IN THE INSTANT CASE IS R S.8,29,450/-. IN THE LIGHT OF THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.5/2008 DATED 15-05-2008, THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RS.2 LAKHS, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS A 2 ND APPEAL IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED IN THIS CASE. 2 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER/OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE SAME A.YR. THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2011 HAS RESTRICTED THE ESTIMATION OF GROS S PROFIT FROM 8% TO 5%. FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A.YR. I.E. 2005-06 WHEREIN BOTH ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL ON THE SAME IS SUES. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THOUGH THE LD. DR RELYING ON T HE ORDERS OF THE AO COULD NO CONTRACT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDERS DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2011 FFOR A.YR. 2006-07 AND TRIBUNALS OR DER DATED 25.06.2010 FOR A.YR.2005-06 THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRI CTED GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 5% INSTEAD OF 8% BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 8. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CA REFUL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRICTED THE ESTIMATION OF GP A T 5% BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- FURTHER, AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, IN THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT 5% NET PRO FIT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE AND THEREF ORE, WE HOLD THAT NO FURTHER DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST A S CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS WARRANTED. 8.1. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LD. DR CO ULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIALS CONTRARY TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE RESTRICT THE ESTIMATION OF G.P. AT 5%. 5.1. WE FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAM E ,WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 3 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED.. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08.04.2011. SD/- SD/- . .. . . .. . , , , , B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , ,, , #$ #$ #$ #$ , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 08.04.2011. #2 0 .3 4#3(5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. KARTICK CHANDRA DHAR, ZILLA PARISHAD COMPOUND, P.O. MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR. 2 THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, MIDNAPORE 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XXXVII, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA /3 ./ TRUE COPY, #2&:/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)