SHRI ABHISHEK CHOPRA, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFICER-1(1), JALANDHAR

ITA 208/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6929 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH SMC AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.208/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2014-15 SH. ABHISHEK CHOPRA, C/O SH. DINESH SARNA, ADV., MODEL TOWN RAOD, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFLPC4705N ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. BHAWAN I SHANKAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.01.2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-1,JALANDHAR. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A) DAT ED 27.03.2018 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE . 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 24,81,426/- BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE 2.5% AGAINS T DECLARED RATE OF 0.04% BY ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION BA SIS AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON OR WITHOUT PUTTING AN Y EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 3. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 24,81,426/- WITHOUT GIVING A NY COGNIZANCE TO AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . ITA NO. 208/ASR./2018 ABHISHEK CH OPRA 2 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2014 ELECTRONICALLY DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.4,74,020/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). LAT ER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESS MENT EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME AT RS.2 9,55,446/- BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 2.5%. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH H AS BEEN INCORPORATED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION, THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ONLY DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT DID NOT FILE COMPARATIVE DETAILS OF T HE EXPENSES SO AS TO SHOW WHICH OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE Y EAR HAD INCREASED AND WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR SUCH INCREA SE. SHE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED BOOKS O F ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE B EEN REJECTED. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT DETAILS OF FEW EXPENSES FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DRASTIC FALL IN THE PROFIT DECL ARED. SHE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO. 208/ASR./2018 ABHISHEK CH OPRA 3 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS WERE FURN ISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME AND THERE WAS NO BASI S FOR APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 2.5% WHEN THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED PR OPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE AND THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPE NSES AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT SHE NEITHER ACCEPTED THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOR REJECTED. SHE ALSO DID NOT ASK ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IN OTHER WOR DS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE. I, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08/01/2019) SD/- (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 08/01/2019 *SUBODH*