Umesh Kumar Mittal, Rourkela V. ITO, Rourkela

ITA 324/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 32422114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGARWAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 , CUTTACK IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK ( )BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI P.K.BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . , HONBLE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO.324/CTC/ /2013 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 UMESH KUMAR MITTAL, ROURKELA PA NO.ABHPM 2108 F - - - VERSUS- ITO, WARD 2 ROURKELA ( $% /APPELLANT ) ( &'$% /RESPONDENT) $% ) / FOR THE APPELLANT: /SHRI S.K.AGARWAL &'$% ) /FOR THE RESPONDENT: /SHRI S.C.MOHANTY * + , / DATE OF HEARING: 23.4.2014 -.' , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 .4.2014 / / ORDER PER BENCH THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED OF LD CIT(A)-II, BHUBANESWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT, THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE WRONG IN E STIMATING THE PROFITS AND GAIN FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 19,49,025 BY ADOPTING THE PROFIT RATIO AT 8% ON GROSS RECEIPTS WITHOUT BRING ANY MAT ERIALS IN HAND AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY COMPARABLE CASES, THEREFORE THE BOOK RES ULTS OF THE APPELLANT IS TO BE ACCEPTED. 3 STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THE TRUE AND FAIR VIEW WHICH WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 20008-09 AND 2009-2010, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SEC TION 143(1), DETERMINING NET PROFIT OF 0.56%, 0.79% & 1.67%, RESPECTIVELY. LD A.R. SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, WHERE IN, DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE GROSS PROFIT @ 4.9%. THEREFORE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, REASONABLE ESTIMATE MAY BE MADE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(1). T HEREFORE, FOR ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE BOOKS WERE NOT CHECKED BY THE DEPARTMENT . 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND OTHER CHARGES BEFORE THE AO BUT HAS NOT FURNISH ED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK DETAILS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE , ONE HAS TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AND LOOKING TO THE NET PROFIT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 , WHEREIN, GROSS PROFIT IS TAKEN AT 4.9%, IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS BASIS CONSIDERING ONE YEAR ESTIM ATION, FOR DECIDING THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO FIND T HAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AT 8%, WHICH IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 2011, THE GROSS IS PROFIT AT 4.9% IS ADOPTED, IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DETERMINE THE GROSS PROFIT AT 5% TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY.