Gurmail Singh, Contractor, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 294/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5440 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAGANPREET SANDHU
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A BENCH: CH ANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWL A, JM ITA NO. 294/CHANDI/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07 GURMAIL SINGH, CONTRACTOR V I.T.O. WARD 1, KURUKS HETRA VILLAGE MANGRA P.O. PEHOWA KURUKSHETRA PAN: AKNPS 8489 E (APPELLANT-ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY: S MT. GAGANPREET SANDHU ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 16.12.2010, ON THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ORDERS OF THE AO BY SUSTAINING THE PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C). 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE P ENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT IN THE INSTANT YEAR THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS BY APPLYING NET RATE OF PROFIT AT 8 % AND THE ASSESSEE NEITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOME NOR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DEFECTIVE AND THEREFORE, THEY WERE REJECTED. RESUL TANTLY, NO PROFIT RATE WAS APPLIED AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THESE A DDITIONS THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE AO. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CO NFIRMED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO SEVERAL JUD GMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS DECISIONS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEVY OF IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS INVA LID AS IT WAS BASED ON ESTIMATE OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MERELY FOUND DEFECTIVE AND THEY WERE REJECTED AND THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE MADE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR LEV Y OF PENALTY. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AS A RESULT OF ADD ITIONS BASED ON REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CONCEALED OR SUPPRESSED ANY MATERIAL OR INFORMATION, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE DULY AUDITED. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE IMPUGNED PENAL IS LIABLE TO BE CANC ELLED AND IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED. 5. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON APRIL, 2011 (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER GURMAIL SINGH V. I.T.O WARD 1, KURUKSHETRA 294/CHANDI/2011 2 CHANDIGARH: THE APRIL, 2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, GURMAIL SINGH, KURUKSHETRA 2. THE RESPONDENT, I.T.O. WARD 1, KURUKSHETRA 3. THE CIT(A), KARNAL 4. THE LD. CIT, KARNAL 5. THE D.R, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH