Surendranath Gouda, Ganjam V. ITO, Berhampur

ITA 245/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65109 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: A K PADHY PATTNAIK ARS
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , S HRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 245/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 SRI SURENDERANATH GOUDA, GADADAMODARPALLI, DHARAKOTE, ASKA, GANJAM PAN:AGTPG 7079 A - - - VERSUS - INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AAYAKA R BHAWAN, AMBAPUA, BERHAMPUR, ODISHA. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI A.K.PADHY .PATTNAIK, ARS / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 27.08.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.09.2012 / ORDER . . . , SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DT.21.2.2012 OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @7% FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HOLDING T HE SAME AS REASONABLE. 3. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WORKS CONTRAC TOR, WHICH FILED RETURN ON 29.10.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF 1,67,600. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) AND REFUND OF 58,000 WAS CREATED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND AFTER ISSUING NECESSARY I.T.A.NO. 245/CTK/2012 2 STATUTORY NOTICES U/S.1 43(2) AND 142(1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RESORTING TO ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @7% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT BILLS AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY HIM . 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERIN G THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REASONABLE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE ISSUE STATED SUPRA. 5. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD REGARDING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. 6. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ALL THE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AND THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED ARE SELF - MADE. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT SUCH FINDING OF FACT . THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT C OULD NOT BE COMPLETELY RELIED UPON AND FOR THAT MATTER RESORTING TO ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT ON THE GROSS CONTRACT BILLS. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT IS 40,19,466 I.E., ALMOST 40,00,000 FOR WHICH THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES THE PROFIT RATE OF 8 %. HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.332/CTK/2008 DT.11.9.2008 IN THE CASE OF M/S.JUDHIS TIR SAMANTRAY AND IN ITA NOS.42 & 43/CTK/ DT/13/5/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI DURGA P RASAD TRIPATHY, WHERE IN THIS TRIBUNAL CUTTACK I.T.A.NO. 245/CTK/2012 3 BENCH , ON IDENTICAL FACTS , HAS ACCEPTED THE ESTIMATION OF THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% AND 9% RESPECTIVELY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN UPHOLDI NG THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @7% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT BILLS ( INADVERTENTLY STATED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AS @8%) AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , HOLDING THE SAME AS REASONABLE. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND D ISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FINDING THE ISSUE RAISED BY IT AS DEVOID OF MERIT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) DATE: 14.09.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. / THE APPELLANT : SRI SURENDERANATH GOUDA, GADADAMODARPALLI, DHARAKOTE, ASKA, GANJAM 2 / THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AMBAP UA, BERHAMPUR, ODISHA. 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6. GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 05.09.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 06.09.2012 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 DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEM ENT.... 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 W HICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER .. ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY.