Shri Ghanshyambhai Naranbhai Narola, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-8, Surat

ITA 190/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51065 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Additional evidence; TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN A LANKAMONY, AM) ITA NO. 190/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2006-07 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI NARANBHAI NAROLA, 37, PAJAVA, KATARGAM ROAD, SURAT VS THE A. C. I. T., CIR-8, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT PA NO. AAVPN 3861 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, DR DATE OF HEARING: 13-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16-12-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE F OLLOWING GROUND: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,78,953/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATING NET PROFIT @5% INSTEAD OF NET PROFIT IN IDENTICAL BUSINESS TAKEN B Y ITAT IN VARIOUS IDENTICAL CASES AT 1% OF LABOUR RECEIPTS. T HE ADDITION OF RS.30,78,953/- SHOULD THEREFORE, BE DEL ETED. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CALLED FOR CERTAIN R ECORDS LIKE STOCK REGISTER, COPIES OF BILLS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R LABOUR CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PRINCIPAL, EVIDENC ES REGARDING RATE ITA NO.190/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI NARANBHAI NAROL VS ACIT, CIR-8, SURAT 2 OF LABOUR CHARGES RECEIVED AND PAID PER CARAT, COPI ES OF THE AGREEMENT WITH LABOUR CONTRACTORS AND THE PRINCIPAL , CONTRA ACCOUNT OF MOST OF THE JOB WORKERS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID LABOUR CHARGES, PRODUCTION OF JOB WORKERS IN PERSONS FOR V ERIFICATION, COPY OF TDS RETURN FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, PROOF OF STAFF SALARY AND NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM, COP IES OF ASSORTMENT CHARGES RAISED BY THE WORKERS, CHARGES PER CARAT, D ETAILS OF MISC. EXPENSES ETC. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SA ME. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS, THE AO DISALL OWED THE EXPENSES AND ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS.30,78,953/- AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ADDITION BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT C OMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ATTE NDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE ON MERITS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CON SIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AN D MATERIALS BEFORE THE AO AND THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE BEFORE HIM , DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ABOVE GROUND. 3. THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING IN MARCH, 20 09. IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN IT WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 07-06-2011 AND THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SOUGHT FOR SHORT ADJOURNMENT AFTER 15-06-20 11. ON HIS REQUEST THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED. AGAIN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 18-08-2011. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ITA NO.190/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI NARANBHAI NAROL VS ACIT, CIR-8, SURAT 3 FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED FOR 11-10-2011. T HE APPEAL WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 13-12-2011. THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH IS RE JECTED CONSIDERING IT UNNECESSARY AND THERE WAS NO PLAUSIB LE REASON FOR FURTHER ADJOURNMENT. THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED ON MERI TS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS NOTED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE IN NOT PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS A T THE TIME HEARING. NONE OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENT S WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THEREFORE TH E AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETEN ESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT PROVED. THE AO ALSO NOTED NAMES OF 3 PARTIES WHERE NET PROFIT RATE WAS MORE THAN 5% OF THE JOB W ORK. THE AO ACCORDINGLY APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% AND COMPU TED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E DID NOT PUT ANY APPEARANCE AND NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. NO D ETAILS OR EVIDENCES OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OR ANY PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAS BEEN MADE. THUS, THE FACT REMAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL O N RECORD TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.190/AHD/2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI NARANBHAI NAROL VS ACIT, CIR-8, SURAT 4 LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) 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