M/s. Pushparaj Construction Co.(Old), Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(4), Baroda

ITA 183/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 18320514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 145; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. L. GEHL OT, AM) ITA NO. 183 AND 184/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2004-05 M/S. PUSHPARAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. (OLD), 24, NEEL TERRACE SOCIETY, NR. VASNA JAKAT NAKA, VASNA, BARODA 390 005 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (4), BARODA PA NO. ACCFP 2359 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 17-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20-10-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- V, BARODA DATED 23-04-2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED E X-PARTE. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. IN ITA NO.183/AHD/2009, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE RECTIFICATION ORDER BY DISALLOWING ITA NO.183 AND 184/AHD/2009 M/S. PUSHPARAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. (OLD) VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), BARODA 2 THE CLAIM OF TDS OF RS.2,09,397/-. THE LEARNED CIT( A) NOTED THAT NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE HIM DESPITE SERVICE OF THE S TATUTORY NOTICE. APPEAL WAS, THEREFORE, DECIDED IN THE ABSENCE OF TH E ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT TH E AO HAS WITHDRAWN WRONG CREDIT GIVEN IN RESPECT OF TDS CERTIFICATES A FTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES. NEITHER DURING THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT NOR IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DEFECTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN THAT THE AO SHOUL D HAVE CARRIED OUT PROPER ENQUIRIES TO FIND OUT THE MISTAKE OF QUO TING THE P. A. NUMBER AND ADDRESS. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT DESPITE GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 5. IN ITA NO.184/AHD/2009, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT @ 8% ON CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS BY REJECTING BOOK RESULTS U/S 145 OF THE IT ACT AND FURTHER IT IS CLAIMED THAT TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE TOTAL DISCLOSED PROFIT OF RS.11,64,512/- BEFORE CLAIMING INTEREST ON CAPITAL AND REMUNERATIO N WHILE ESTIMATING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.16,69,257/-. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS.208.65 LACS WHICH WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY FORM NO.16A ENCLOSED WITH THE RETU RN. AFTER AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE TDS CERTIFICATES VIS--VIS THE RECEIPTS. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O FURNISH THE DETAILS OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.108,81,220/- AND CA RTING CHARGES OF RS.4,79,537/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE DETA ILS OR FURNISHED THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE LABO UR CHARGES ITA NO.183 AND 184/AHD/2009 M/S. PUSHPARAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. (OLD) VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), BARODA 3 WERE PAID. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE DETAILS OF OTHER EXPENSES. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, BOOK RESULTS WERE REJECTED AND PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED @ 8%. NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE APPEAL WAS ACCORDINGLY HEARD EX-PARTE. SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NO T PRODUCED, THEREFORE, REJECTION OF THE BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIMA TE OF PROFIT WAS UPHELD. WITH REGARD TO ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON CAP ITAL AND REMUNERATION, THIS GROUND WAS ALSO DISMISSED BECAUS E THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SA ME. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED DR AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS A ND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO FOR RECTIFICATION BY THE AO. DIFFEREN CE IN P. A. NUMBER WAS ALSO FOUND. WHATEVER DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED B Y THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WAS NOT RECONCILED. IN THE ABSENCE OF PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER EVIDENCES, THE A O CORRECTLY REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND CORRECTLY ESTIMATED T HE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO REASONABLY ESTIMATED THE PROFIT BY APPLYING PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO HAS REDUCED THE INTEREST ON PARTNERS, CAPITA L AND REMUNERATION OF PARTNERS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCO ME AGAINST THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME MADE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE AO IS REASONABLE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, N O FURTHER INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.184/AHD/2009 HAS NOT MERIT AND I S DISMISSED. ITA NO.183 AND 184/AHD/2009 M/S. PUSHPARAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. (OLD) VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), BARODA 4 7. AS REGARDS THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 OF TH E IT ACT IS CONCERN, THE DISCREPANCIES NOTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES HAVE NOT BEEN RECONCILED BY THE ASSESS EE. EVEN IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND OTHER PAPERS, SUCH THINGS HA VE NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE GOT OPPORTUNI TY TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING ON THIS ISSUE EVEN BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AND DESPITE GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES DID NOT EX PLAIN ANYTHING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FI ND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.183/AHD/2009. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 20/10/2011 SD/- SD/- (A. L. GEHLOT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.183 AND 184/AHD/2009 M/S. PUSHPARAJ CONSTRUCTION CO. (OLD) VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), BARODA 5