Sh. Mohinder Pal, Jalandhar V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar

ITA 265/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 26520914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.265(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001-02 PAN :AAOPP9651L SH. MOHINDER PAL, VS. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, M/S. ANAND RAM MOHINDER PAL, RANGE-III, JALANDHAR. JAIN MARKET, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. J.S. BHASIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING:08/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:27/08/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 04.04.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF BANK INTEREST AND BANK CHARGES, TO DETERMI NE TRUE PROFITS ON UNDISCLOSED SALES, TRANSACTED THROUGH BA NK ACCOUNTS. 2 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOW ED EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE, WHEN THE FACTUM OF SUCH EXPENSE COULD NOT BE IN DISPUTE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN INFERRING THAT THE SAID EXPENSE HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO WHILE APPLYING A MARGINALLY LESSER NP RATE BY 0.33% ON UNDISCLOSED SALES. 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE MOST REASONABLE AND LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 5. THAT SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- HAS BEEN W RONGLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SURVEY UNDE R SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.03.2005 BY DDIT (INV.) AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INCRI MINATING MATERIAL WAS IMPOUNDED BY SURVEY PARTY. THE STATEMENT OF MR. MOH INDER PAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ANANT RAM MOHINDER PAL WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THE PROPRIETOR SH. MOHINDER PAL ADMITTED HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH ALLAHABAD BANK, JALANDHAR, WHICH WAS N OT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH CONTAINS DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,20,70,476/-. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) ALONGWITH A QUESTIONNAIRE REQUIRING WHY AN INCOME ESCAPING ASSE SSMENT AT RS.7,82,994/- BE NOT CHARGED TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE R EPLY AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECLARED NET PROFIT AND AD DING FIXED EXPENSES WORKED OUT THE NET PROFIT /SALES RATIO AT 4.33% AND ACCORDINGLY APPLIED THE N.P. AT 4% AT THE SALES OF RS.1,01,44,476/-, WHICH COMES TO RS.4,05,779/- 3 AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E, AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF AL LAHABAD BANK, MAI HIRA GATE, JALANDHAR. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE A.O. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR J.S. BHASIN , ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE RATE OF 4% WHILE MAKING ADD ITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ONLY NET PROF IT DECLARED AS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND NO ADDITION OF FIXED EXPENSES SHOU LD HAVE BEEN MADE THERE. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE G.P. AND N.P SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE YEAR AND IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED BUT ON T HE ADJOURNED DATE BEING THE DATE OF HEARING, NOTHING WAS SUBMITTED. THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE AO WERE SENT TO THE AO FOR COMMENTS BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ON THE COMMENTS OF THE AO. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE WORKING OF THE AO FOR APPLYING RATE OF 4% IS NO T CORRECT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE AND THE COMMENTS OF THE AO AND THE COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS RIGHTLY HELD 4 THAT AO ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.33,000/- BY TAKING THE NET PROFIT AT 4% AS AGAINST THE COMPUTED NET PROFIT OF 4.33%, WE FIND N O INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE A.O. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.265(ASR)/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27TH AUGUST, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. MOHINDER PAL, JALANDHAR. 2. THE DCIT R-III, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A). JLR 4. THE CIT, JLR 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.