The ACIT,B.K.Circle, Palanpur V. M/s. Jugalkishor Ramkishan Agrawal & Co., Deesa

ITA 1904/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5911 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1904/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT, B.K. CIRCLE, PALANPUR VS. M/S. JUGALKISHOR RAMKISHAN AGRAWAL & CO., ASHOK VILA, OPP. OLD ADARSH HIGH SCHOOL, DEESA-385535 PAN : AABFJ 7877 R / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/05/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12/05/2017 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: WITH THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE COR RECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 06.06.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CI T(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,42,04,910/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR WHO FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2007, SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,48,03,560/ -. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND AN ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.12.20 09, WHERE THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.1,48,47,310/- ITA NO. 1904/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. JUGALKISHOR RAMKISHAN AGRAWAL & CO AY 2007-08 2 4. THE COMMISSIONER, ASSUMING POWER UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT, ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE AS THE SAME IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. 5. THE COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT CER TAIN EXPENDITURES WERE NOT VERIFIED NOR WERE SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY E VIDENCES LIKE BILLS, VOUCHERS, ETC. NOR THEY WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICAT ION. SIMILAR WAS THE CASE WITH SALES TAX EXPENSES. 6. TAKING A LEAF OUT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMI SSIONER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE PROFIT AT 8% OF THE TOTAL RECE IPTS OF RS.36.31 CRORES AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,90,52,220/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STR ONGLY CONTENDED THAT ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHICH ARE EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT R ECORDS AND MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 2.5. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT THAT THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 30.4.2012 THE ASSESSMENT RECORD S WERE CALLED FOR AND PERUSED. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. TO BE SPECIFIC, IT WAS STATED IN THE OR DER SHEET NOTING DTD. 12.09.2011 THAT THE AR ATTENDED AND FURNISHED PART REPLY. AS SEEN FROM THE LETTER DATED 10.09.2011 DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES INCLUDING THE SALES TAX WERE FURNISHED. SIMILARLY ON 19.12.2011 IN THE ORD ER SHEET IT WAS NOTED THAT THE AR ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED REPLY. AS SEEN FROM THE LETTER DTD. 19.12.2011 SAMPLE COPIES OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR CARTING EXPENSES AND TRUCK AND CAR REPAIRING EXPENSES ETC. WERE FURNISHE D. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAME TO BE PASSED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 19.12.2011 BY OBSERVING THAT CERTAIN DETAILS WERE NOT PRODUCED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABO VE DISCUSSION, AOS OBSERVATION THAT CERTAIN DETAILS WERE NOT PRODUCED TURNSOUT TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AO D ID NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED. THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WERE NOT REJECTED. THEREFORE, ESTIMATING THE PROFIT IS NOT IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. FURTHER, THERE ITA NO. 1904/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. JUGALKISHOR RAMKISHAN AGRAWAL & CO AY 2007-08 3 IS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT A T 8%. HENCE, IMPUGNED ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO IS AGAINST LAW AND CONTRA RY TO THE FACTS. IT IS DELETED. AO IS DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE INCOME AT TH E INCOME ASSESSED IN THE ORDER DT. 17.12.2009 U/S 143(3). 7. BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY FACTUAL ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS GIVEN THE FINDINGS BASED UPON THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS; THEREFORE, IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE CORR ECT. SINCE ALL THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, WHICH ARE EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES, AND THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH MAY, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/05/2017 BIJU T., SR.PS !#$ %$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! # / CONCERNED CIT 4. # ( ) / THE CIT(A ) 5. & ! , ! , / DR, ITAT, AH MEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD