DCIT Central Circle 2(4), CHENNAI V. Vaibhav Infrastructure, Vellore

ITA 2700/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9252 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SUBASHRI

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2700/CHNY/2018 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S VAIBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE, NO.10A, EAST CROSS ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, VELLORE 632 006. PAN : AAHFV 5878 Q (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : MS. M. SUBASHRI, JCIT ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.04.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -13, CHENN AI, DATED 09.07.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERV ICE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THE REVENUE HAS PLACED ON RECORD T HE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON TH E ASSESSEE. 2 I.T.A. NO.2700/CHNY/18 THERE MAY BE VARIOUS REASONS FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR N OT APPEARING EVEN AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE BY RPAD. ONE OF TH E REASONS MAY PRESUMABLY BE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE INTEREST ED IN DEFENDING ITS CASE. WHATEVER MAY BE REASON FOR NON -APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS EXPECTED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. MS. M. SUBASHRI, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDING T O THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE FIRM WERE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS, HOW THE DEPARTMENT EXPECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS? THE LD . D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY O BSERVED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE SAME. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, RESTRICTED THE 3 I.T.A. NO.2700/CHNY/18 PROFIT AT 5.29% AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT A T 8% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT AT 8 %. 4. WE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMAT ED THE PROFIT AT 8%. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) ON COMPARING THE PRO FIT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, ESTI MATED THE SAME AT 5.29%. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF OB SERVED AT PARA 3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH EVID ENCES ARE SEIZED. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMI NE THE BOOKS AND FIND OUT THE ERROR, IF ANY, WHICH COULD NOT BE VERI FIED. WITHOUT FINDING ANY ERROR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT PO SSIBLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME FOR VERIFICATION. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AUDITED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SEC TION 44AB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). WHE N THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AUDITED THE SAME, T HIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO ESTIMATE THE PROFI T. THEREFORE, THIS 4 I.T.A. NO.2700/CHNY/18 TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 1 ST APRIL, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-13, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-8, CHENNAI-34 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. ) = /GF.