SUNITA KHINCHI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 237/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1962 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 237/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SUNITA KHINCHI, P-51, RAJ ANAGAN, NRI COLONY, PRATAP NAGAR, SANGANER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ALQPK 3638 K VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/01/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A. Y. 2008-09. 2. GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN P RESSED, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- ITA 237/JP/2014_ SUNITA KHINCHI VS ITO 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN APPLYING THE N.P. RATE O F 0.52% AS AGAINST THE N.P. RATE OF 0.32% DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN M/S S.R. PETROLEUM RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF RS. 10,71 3/- ARBITRARILY, THUS THE ADDITION SUSTAINED DESERVES T O BE DELETED. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. I NOTED THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE O NLY COURSE, THEREFORE, REMAINS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE ESTIMATION OF THE PROFIT. IN THIS CASE, I NOTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) APPLIED TH E N.P. RATE @ .52% WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED .32% IN M/S S.R. PETROLEU M. I FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD AR THAT SINCE THE SALES HA S INCREASED DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE WITH INCREASE OF SALE, THE NET PROFI T IS GOING TO FALL. BUT IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMPARATIVE INSTANCE ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF M/S S.R . PETROLEUM BY APPLYING THE N.P. RATE OF .42%. THIS, IN MY OPINION, WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN APPLYING THE NP RATE OF 18.34% AS AGAINST THE N.P. RATE OF 14.71% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN M/S S.R. MARBLES RESULTING INTO SUSTAIN ING THE ITA 237/JP/2014_ SUNITA KHINCHI VS ITO 3 TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 1,61,594/- ARBITRARILY THUS THE ADDITION SUSTAINED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, T HE ONLY QUESTION REMAINS ESTIMATION OF THE NET PROFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE @ 18.34% ON THE BASIS OF THE RESULTS FOR THE PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS IS ALSO A FACT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED BY 2.5 TIMES AND DUE TO THE INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER, THE NET PROFIT IS BOUND TO FALL AS THE AS SESSEE HAS TO MAKE EXTRA SELL AT A LESSER PROFIT. I, THEREFORE, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ES TIMATE THE N.P. RATE @ 16.52%. THIS, IN MY OPINION, WILL MEET THE ENDS OF J USTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 03 RD NOVEMBER, 2015 ITA 237/JP/2014_ SUNITA KHINCHI VS ITO 4 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SUNITA KHINCHI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR.. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 237/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR