IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 08/06/2011 DRAFTED ON: 08/06/2011 ITA NO.208/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S.GANESH ENTERPRISE ASHIRWAD COMPLEX OPP.DHANAMIL VARACHHA ROAD,SURAT VS. ITO WARD-9(2) SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AADFG 3802 B ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : -NONE- RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B.L. YADAV, D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, SURAT DATED 22/10/2008 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS P ER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1008450 IN HIS ORDER VIDE PARA-4.4 TO 4.6 BY APPLYING SECTION 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER ASSE SSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF LAYING OF CABLES OF TELEPHONE WHICH AMO UNTS TO THE CIVIL CONTRACT WORK, PARA 4.3 [PAGE NO.3]. BY TAKING SUC H ASSUMPTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIES SECTION 44AD AND MADE ADD ITION VIDE PARA 4.6 [PAGE NO.3] OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.12.07 HENCE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO .208/AHD/2009 GANESH ENTERPRISE VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2005-06 - 2 - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS ON LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TRE ATING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 44AD OF THE ACT AND COMPUTING INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING NET PROFIT @ 8% I.E. RS.1373369 AS AGAINST R S.858738 -@5% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE PAST ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, NOTICES HAVE BEE N ISSUED, BUT NO ONE FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT HAD APPEARED. AGAIN, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 13/04/2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 08/06/2011 WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST (AD) TO THE ASSESSEE (AS PE R EVIDENCE ON RECORD) WHICH WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNSERV ED WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OPT ION BUT TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING WITH ITS AP PEAL. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH C OURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) AND OF HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DELHI), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( A.N. PAHUJA ) ( MU KUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD; DATED / /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO .208/AHD/2009 GANESH ENTERPRISE VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2005-06 - 3 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-V, SURAT 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..08/06/2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 08/06/2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER