B.R. Constructions, SURATGARH V. ITO, SURATGARH

ITA 338/JODH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8005 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 338/JU/2011 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09] B.R. CONSTRUCTIONS VS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK SURATGARH SURATGARH PAN NO: AABFB 1517 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2012 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, BIKANER DATED 08.07.2012. 2 2. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS A CONTRACTOR WHO FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON 24.9.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4,64,850/- FROM ITS BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CI VIL CONTRACTS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED U/S 1 43(3) ON 13.12.2010 IN WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 7,40,500/- WAS MADE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND GOT A PART RELIEF. BEING FURTHER AGGRIEVED, TH IS SECOND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. DESPITE BEING DULY SERVED W ITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NO ONE CAME PRESENT TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL WAS H EARD EX- PARTE. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS REGA RDING ADDITION OF RS. 7,40,500/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. D.R. AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSE D THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN C REDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7,40,500/- AS ITS OUT-STANDING BUSINESS LIABILITY WHICH WAS CLEARED JUST IN THE NEXT YEAR. WE HAVE FOUND THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. IN THE 3 LIGHT OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ARE NOT FULLY COMING ON RECORD. WE CAN SAFELY STATE THAT T HE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS, ONLY: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE PLEA OF THE LD. A.R. THAT ON CE THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR THI S ADDITION IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CASE OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALE KHAN MOHD. HANIF VS. CIT 50 ITR 1 AND THE CASE OF CIT VS . DEVI PRASAD VISHWANATH PRASAD 72 ITR 194 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN LAW WHICH PREVEN TED THE A.O. IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE IN TAXING BOTH THE CASH CREDIT, THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF WHICH WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED, AND THE BUSINESS INCOME ESTIMATED BY HIM AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNRELIABLE. THIS PLEA OF THE LD . A.R. IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. EVEN OTHERWISE, FROM THE PERUSAL OF LETTER DATED 19.10.2010 FURNISHED BY THE LD. A.R. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS SEEN T HAT ONLY A LIST OF CREDITORS WAS FURNISHED AND NO COMPL ETE ADDRESSES WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR VERIFICATION BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, SUSTAIN ED. 4 6. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BAC K TO HIS FILE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ONLY FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ACCORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE, AS PER LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH DECEMBER , 2012 VL/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) BY ORDER 5. THE DR ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR