Dinesh Kumar, Godda V. DCIT, Circle-III, Deoghar

ITA 18/RAN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2783 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI E - COURT AT KOLKATA BEFORE SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO .18 / RAN /2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DINESH KUMAR ..... ........... APPELLANT CIVIL CONTRACTOR, SHANTI NAGAR, GODDA 814133, JHARKHAND . [PAN : ALHPK2015M ] VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - III, DEOGHAR.......... .... .. ..RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. SMT. CHINMAYA AURANGABADKAR, JCIT, DR, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 24 , 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 30 , 2021 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DHANBAD [HEREINAFTER AS CIT(A)]. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ESTIMATING NET PROFIT @8% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,22,05,011/ - FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AS AGAINST NET PROFIT OF RS.6,83,480/ - @5.6% DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED DULY TAX AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES WERE FULLY VERIFIABLE. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PAST RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT WHERE LOWER RATE OF PROFIT WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND BE DELETED. IN ANY VIEW THE ESTIMATE MADE IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 2. FOR THAT INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE CHARGED ON TAX PAYABLE ON RETURNED INCOME, AS PER DECISION OF HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT DTD. 25 TH JULY, 2012, IN TAX APPEAL NO.38 OF 2010, IN THE CASE OF SRI AJAY PRAKASH VEMA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE - 1, WARD - 1, DHANBAD REPORTED IN MANU/JH/2120/2012 AND IN 2013 (4) J.LJ.R. 389 (JHARKHAND) AND ALSO THE DECISIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE ITAT. 3. FOR THAT OTHER GROUNDS, IF ANY, WILL BE TAKEN UP, ARGUED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. NO ONE HAS PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BY ONE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI MUKESH KUMAR, STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN IMPRISONMENT, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT PUT APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO.18/RAN/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DINESH KUMAR 2 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HEARING THE LD. DR, I FIND THAT SINCE A SIMPLE ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS A FAIR CASE, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL CAN BE D ISPOSED OFF AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 4. VIDE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ESTIMATING NET PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE @8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGAINST 5.6% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS BUSI NESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. 6. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE HIM. HE, THEREFORE, ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSES SEE @10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 7. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE NECESSARY DETAILS LIKE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREUPON THE REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED UPON FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES REGARDING THE B ILLS , VOUCHERS ETC. THE LD. CIT(A) REQUISITIONED THE CASE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS LETTER 09.05.2016. THEREAFTER, A FRESH LETTER CALLING FOR THE CASE RECORDS WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN FAILED TO SEND THE RECORDS TO THE LD. CIT(A) STATING THAT THE SAME WERE NOT TRACEABLE. THE LD. CI T(A), THEREFORE, DID NOT CONSIDER THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED AND THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE SAME. HOWEVER, HE, GIVING SOME RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATED THE NET PROFITS @8% AS AGAINST 10% ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL PLEADING THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ESTIMATING THE PROFITS WHEN THE ACCOUNTS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMA ND REPORT WAS CALLED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE . T HE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FURNISHED HIS ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS WHEREUPON THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ,H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS I.T.A. NO.18/RAN/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DINESH KUMAR 3 ETC. FROM THE PARTIES AND DID NOT SEND ANY REMAND REPORT. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SEND THE CASE RECORDS STATING THAT THE SAME WERE NOT TRACEABLE . B ECAUSE OF THE LACK ON THE PART OF THE OFFICIAL S OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PUNISHED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN MY VIEW, ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE NET PROFIT AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUN CED ON 30 .04 . 20 2 1 . SD/ - [SANJAY GARG] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 .04. 202 1 . RS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT - 2. THE RESPONDENT - 3. THE CIT CONCERNED - 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR - 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. P.S., ITAT, KOLKATA