M/s Lotus Infrabuild Ltd., Barnala V. DCIT, Sangrur

ITA 232/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9051 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) DEV DARSHAN SUD, PRESIDENT & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 232/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S LOTUS INFRABUILD LTD., VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, BARNALA SANGRUR PAN NO. AAXJN2654U (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2016 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), PATIALA DATED 16.2.2016. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A C OMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO IN THE BUSI NESS OF TRADING IN CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. IT FILED IT RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13 ON 26.9.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,47, 16,020/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 12% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 3. ON APPEAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOLLOWE D THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, AS CONFIRMED BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE IN COME TAX APPELLATE 2 TRIBUNAL AND UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND HAD REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM 12% TO 7% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS.AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTION, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER, HAS LISTED OUT TH E REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY DISPUTED EACH OF THESE REASONS. THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NET HER BEEN MENTIONED OR ADJUDICATED UP BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE OF CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICERS ACTION IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT HE SHOUL D GIVE A REASONED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BY IT HAVE TO BE ADJ UDICATED UPON. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) F OR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- [J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] [JUSTICE (RETD.)D EV DARSHAN SUD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT DATED : 21 ST OCTOBER, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR