C J GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO WD 1, RAIGAD

ITA 3569/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9298 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) I.T.A. NO. 3569 /MUM/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 1 2 ) M/S. CJ GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS JUGAL MODI, BHOOMI ELITE PLOT NO. 27,27A, 27B SECTOR 28, NERUL NEAR A GRI KOLI SAMAJ HALL NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706. PAN : AAFFC7914G VS. ITO WARD - 1 THIRD FLOOR TRIFED TOWER OPP. KHANDA COLONY PANVEL RAIGAD - 410206. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI RAM TIWARI DATE OF HEARING 20 .9. 201 7 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 . 9 . 201 7 O R D E R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23 - 01 - 2017 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 2, AURANGABAD AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF L D CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT AND THE ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST INCOME. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. HENCE I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THOUGH IT WAS STATED THAT IT IS FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD, IT DID NOT OFFER ANY INCOME FROM THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY IT. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALE ADVANCE OF 2.90 CRORES AND ALSO EXECUTED PROJECT TO THE TUNE OF RS.5.70 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER M/S. C.J. GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS 2 ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT DID NOT OFFER ANY INCOM E. HENCE THE AO DETERMINED THE WORK IN PROGRESS AT ` 2.91 CRORES (AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) PASSED FOR AY 2009 - 10) AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 10% THEREOF. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 4. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.7,52,026/ - , BUT DID NOT OFFER THE SAME TO TAXATION. HENCE THE AO ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). 5. I HAVE LEARNED D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER ON BOTH THE ISSUES. BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY I CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 . 9 . 201 7. SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 20 / 9 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI