Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, Amritsar V. The Mattewal Coop. Society Ltd., Amritsar

ITA 356/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5776 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Loose papers; Rule of consistency
• Section: 44AD; 133A; 234B; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 356(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AAAAT5385J THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. THE MATTEWAL C O-OP SOCIETY LTD. CIRC.IV, AMRITSAR. AMRISAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.23(ASR)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.356(ASR)/2010) ASSESMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE MATTEWAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. VS. THE ASSTT. COMM R. OF INCOME-TAX, CIR.IV, AMRITSAR. AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR ASSESSEE BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADV. ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND C.O. BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 15.06.2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN LAW BY HOLDING THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 6% TO THE G ROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT SURV EY U/S 133A 2 WAS CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE ON 27.03.2008 AND NO BOO KS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS, BILLS ETC. WERE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY EXCEPT SOME LOOSE PAPERS AND OLD LEDGERS. THE ASSES SEE THEMSELVES SURRENDERED THE INCOME OF RS. 70 LACS F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVID ENCE AND DUE TO NON-MAINTAINING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RATE OF PROFIT @ 8% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.14,79,28,528/-, A S DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS APPLIED. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR MO RE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS EMANATE FROM REL EVANT RECORDS ARE THAT SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUS INESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27.03.2008. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHE RS, BILLS ETC. WERE FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES EXCEPT SOME LOOSE PA PERS AND OLD LEDGERS. HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY STAT ED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS, BILLS ETC. FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND EARLIER YEARS WERE WITH THE ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS OUT OF STATION. SMT. ANU, WI FE OF THE ACCOUNTANT DENIED HAVING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS, BILLS ETC. OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER, ON 3.7.20 08, THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER SURRENDERING INCOME OF R. 70 LAC TO COVER E RRORS OF OMISSION AND COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 AND EARLIER YEARS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS, BILLS ETC. THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT, COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APP LYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.14,79,28,528/- DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION BY APPL YING NET PROFIT RATE OF 6%. NOW, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS BENCH. 5. THE LD. DR SIMPLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 3 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE AO COMPUTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%, WHICH WAS REDUCED B Y THE CIT(A) TO 6%. HE, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), PASSED WEL L REASONED ORDER, WHICH REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE AND THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD . 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GIVEN OUR THO UGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDE,R DATED 15.06.2010, CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE, IN QUESTION, IN GREATER DETAIL, AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, AS ALSO THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS WELL REASONED AND BASED ON THE COGENT AND CREDIBLE MATERIAL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HOWEVE R, IT WOULD PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSE L FOR THE APPELLANT AND GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL RULINGS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. HAVING DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PARA 4 ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT THA T THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE SELECTION OF CASE IN SCRUTINY THOUGH THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN RAISED IN ANY GROUND S OF APPEAL. THIS CONTENTION WAS ALSO RAISED BEFORE THE AO BUT DID NO T FIND FAVOUR. THE COPY OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CBDT FOR SELECTION OF CASES IN SCRUTINY IN THE YEAR 2007-08 IS FILED AT PAGE 53 OF THE PAPER BOOK.. 4 PARA (XV) OF THESE GUIDELINES PROVIDES FOR SELECTIO N IN SCRUTINY OF ALL CASES OF CONTRACTORS (EXCLUDING TRANSPORTERS) WHOSE GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS RS. 1 CRORE IF THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED F ROM THE CONTRACT WORK IS LESS THAT 5% OF GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS. THE FACT THAT A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT O N 27.03.2008 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE APPELL ANT SURRENDERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.70.00 LACS FOR THE F.Y. REL EVANT TO THE A.Y. 2007-09, WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. IN THESE FAC TS OF THE CASE, THE CASE OF APPELLANT FELL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF COMPUL SORY SCRUTINY UNDER THE SAME GUIDELINES AS RELIED UPON THE LD. COUNSEL. HENCE, ALL THE ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND CALL FOR NO FURTHER ADJUDICATION. THE JUDICIAL RULI NG RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD THAT THE CBDTS CIRCULAR S ARE BINDING ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AS THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF CBDT GUIDELINES AND THE SELECTION OF CASE IN SCRUTI NY UNDER THE COMPULSORY CATEGORY WAS ABSOLUTELY AS PER THE SAID GUIDELINES. 6.1. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS MADE DETAIL SUBMISSIONS AS REGARDS MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE APPELLANT, TAX AUDIT THEREOF BY THE AUDITOR AS WELL AS AUDIT BY THE INSPECTOR (A UDIT) COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. SUCH AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED ALONGWITH TH E RETURN OF INCOME ALSO BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 145(30 OF THE ACT NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT MAINTAINED BUT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE NOT AT ALL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE AO THAT DISCLOSURE OF RS.70.00 LACS WAS MADE TO COVER ERRO RS OF OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IF THAT W AS THE ADMITTED POSITION, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NO LONGER REMAIN RE LIABLE AND THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD. 6.2. THE MAIN GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.47,04,127/- MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING THE NET P ROFIT RATE OF 8% ON THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME BY APPLYING RATE OF 8% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPT IN VIEW OF THE PAST HIST ORY OF THE CASE WHEREIN THE LOWER PROFIT RATES WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. I HAVE PERUSED THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY T HE RESPECTIVE AOS IN THIS CASE OF APPELLANT FOR A.YS. 2003-04, 2005-0 6 AND 2006-07 FILED 5 IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE NET PROFIT RATES OF 0.04%, 0.20% AND 0.22% RESPECTIVELY WERE A CCEPTED BY THE AOS ARE CORRECT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS THAT SU CH PROFIT RATES WERE ACCEPTED AFTER EXAMINING THE GENUINENESS OF THE APP ELLANT SOCIETY AND EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED IN THOSE A SSESSMENT YEARS WITHOUT DRAWING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE A PPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT AP PLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY MAY BE CON SIDERED BUT THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF EACH C ASE. THERE IS A CLEAR ADMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO WHI LE SURRENDERING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2.00 CRORES THAT SURREN DER WAS MADE TO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT EARLIER ASSESSMENTS STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND ONWARDS WILL NOT BE DIS TURBED. THIS LEADS TO THE INTERFERENCE THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOM E SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLANT WAS TO COVER ERRORS OF OMISSIONS AND COMM ISSIONS IN EARLIER YEARS AS WELL. AS FAR AS THE PAST HISTORY OF CASE IS CONCERNED, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. FOSS ELECTRONIC (263 ITR 125) HAS OBSERVED THAT BY MISTAKE OF THE O FFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT, IF A WRONG ORDER HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGE D THAT DOES NOT GIVE ANY RIGHT OR CONFER ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO THAT MISTAKE SHOULD PERPETUATE. THAT MISTAKE SHOULD BE RECTIFIED AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. S IMILARLY IN THE CASE OF THE BANDI CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION S OCIETY VS. CIT ( 300 ITR 107), THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH CO URT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM EXEMPTION MERELY BECAUSE IN THE EARLIER YEARS OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS IT HAD GOT EXEMPTION. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT EACH YEAR IS AN INDEPENDENT ASSESS MENT YEAR. HENCE, THE ARGUMENT REGARDING LOW PROFIT RATE ACCEPTED IN THE PAST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS A.Y. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION. I FIND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR OFFERING ADDITION AL INCOME OF RS.70.00 LACS IN A.Y. 2007-08 BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THER E IS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE AO. TH ESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSE SSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT IN PROBING FURTHER ONCE OFFER OF ADDITIO NAL INCOME WAS MADE, WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE AO, BEING QUASI JUDICI AL AUTHORITY, TO EXAMINE ALL ASPECTS OF THE CASE AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF INCOME TAX LAW. WITH REGARD TO THE REASONABILITY OF NET PROFIT RATE, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL RULINGS AND THE DE CISIONS IN THESE CASES HAVE TO BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF EACH CASE. IN THE CASE OF RAJ & 6 CO. CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. BATHINDA (SUPRA), THE HON BLE ITAT CONFIRMED THE PROFIT RATE OF 6% BUT THIS COMPANY HA D THE CONTRACT OF EXCAVATION IN WHICH NO BUILDING MATERIAL WAS REQUIR ED AND ONLY EARTH WAS TO BE EXCAVATED. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE BANDI CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR & CONSTRU CTION SOCIETY (SUPRA) DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF ITAT WH EREIN PROFIT RATE OF 6% WAS UPHELD AND THIS WAS A CASE OF LABOUR CONTRAC TOR. THE ITAT, AMRITSAR, IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANGAT RAM CONTRACTOR , BATHINDA (SUPRA) UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT RATE OF 6% BY HOLDING THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WERE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF TH E BANDI COOPERATIVE LABOUR & CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY AND THE ASSESSEE ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF THE BATHINDA TRUCK OPERATOR S UNION VS. ITO IN ITA NO.380(ASR)/2003 IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THIS W AS A CASE OF TRANSPORTER. THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF K.V. SRI NIVASA RAO & OTHERS (SUPRA) IS MISPLACED. IN THE CASE, THE ASSES SEE OFFERED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME @ 4% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND RETURNED THE SAID NET PROFIT WHICH WAS BASED ON THE BASIS OF NET WORT H/NET WEALTH. THE APPELLANT EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE ME HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FACTS AS TO WHAT PROFIT RATE COMES IN ITS CASE BY APPLYING THE CONCEPT OF NET WEALTH/NET WORTH. HENCE, IN ABSENCE OF FACTU AL INFORMATION AND THE BASIS OF WORKING OF PROFIT RATE, THE PROFIT RAT E OF 4% DIRECTED TO BE APPLIED BY THE HONLE ITAT IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AND MATERIAL. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO THAT THE NET P ROFIT RATE OF 8% HAS BEEN APPLIED BY MAKING OBSERVATIONS THAT RATE L AID DOWN IN SECTION 44AD IS FOR THOSE ASSESSES WHO OPT FOR NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THIS RATE WAS NORMALLY APPLICABLE TO CASES OF CIVIL CONTRACTORS WHO DO NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR WHO DO NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE AO OR WHOSE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED U/S 145(3) DUE TO DEFECTS/DEFICIENCIES . IT IS THUS, SEEN THAT THE AO IN ADDITION TO REJECTING THE BOOK RESULT, H AS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORDS TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTION IN ESTIMA TING THE NET PROFIT AT 8% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. NEITHER ANY COMPARABLE CASE HAS BEEN CITED BY THE AO NOT OPPORTUNITY AS TO THE APPLICATI ON OF 8% PROFIT RATE WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS ARE REJECTED, THE AO IS BOUND TO MAKE FAIR AND REASONABLE ESTIMAT E OF INCOME BASED ON EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT BY THE 7 AO IN THIS CASE IS PURELY BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS. THE HONBLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 44AD OF THE ACT ARE STRICTLY AND TECHNICALLY NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASES WHERE TURNOVER EXCEEDS RS. 40.00 LACS ALTHOUGH THE RATE OF PROFIT OF 8% PROVIDED THEREIN IS A POINTER FOR ESTIMATING THE IN COME IN OTHER CASES SUBJECT TO ACTUAL FINDING OF FACTS AND BASED ON OTH ER RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL. IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIDYA S AGAR SAINI CONTRACTOR, I HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION @8% OF THE C ONTRACT RECEIPTS IN APPEAL NO.111/2008-09 IN THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2010 . SIMILARLY, IN OTHER CASES OF M/S. DALJIT SINGH & BROTHERS, THE PR OFIT RATE OF 8% WAS CONFIRMED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, A MRITSAR IN ITS CASE. HOWEVER, THESE WERE THE CASES OF CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THE APPELLANT IS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AS CONTRACTOR WHEREIN THERE IS SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND LABOUR . IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC CASE CITED BY THE AO, I FIND THAT THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS MORE OR LESS COMPARABLE TO THE CASE OF THE BANDI CO-OPE RATIVE LABOUR & CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY AND SHRI MANGAT RAM CONTRACTOR , BATHINDA (SUPRA), I HOLD THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO APPL Y NET PROFIT RATE OF 6% TO THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. T HIS IS CONSIDERED REASONABLE AS THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER AT RS.14.79 CRORES. HENCE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29,58,571/- IS DELETED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED. 7.1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), AS THE SAME ARE BASED ON P ROPER APPRECIATION OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY , THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN C.O. NO.23(ASR)/2010, THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.17,45,556/- OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.45,04,147/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A), SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 8 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAIN ING THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 6% TO THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT S AGAINST 8% APPLIED BY THE A.O. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE WHOLE ADDITION AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,45,556/- CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), MAY BE DELETED . 3. THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B & 234C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED IN TOTO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHAR GING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961. 8.1. SINCE, WE HAVE UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD . CIT(A), AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE C.O. FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION, AS IT FALLS IN THE REALM OF ACADEMIC INTEREST. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16TH JUNE, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE MATTEWAL CO-OPERATIVE L & C SOCIET Y LTD. AMRITSAR. 2. THE ACIT CIR.IV, AMRITSAR. 3. THE CIT(A),JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT,JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) 9 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.