The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Srinagar V. Sh. Abdul Rashid, Pulwama

ITA 378/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 37820914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.378(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AJFPP7714C ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. SH. ABDUL RASHID, PROP. CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR. M/S. PBS CONSTRUCTION CO; SOLINA, PULWAMA, KAHSMIR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR RESPONDENT BY:NONE DATE OF HEARING:19/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:22/11/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 17.07.2012 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN VACATING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN T MADE U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT WHEN THE A.O. HAS CLEARLY ENUMERA TED THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WE RE NOT ESTABLISHED. ITA NO.378(ASR)/2012 2 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE MOR E GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 19.11.2012 BY RPAD. DESPITE THIS, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CA SE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PRO SECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE AND AS SUCH WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE EX-PARTE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND S TATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY VACATED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHI CH DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVA NT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER D ETAILED DISCUSSIONS HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER, WHICH DESERVES NO INTERFERENCE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.378(ASR)/2012 3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT BOOK OF AC COUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL WAS DULY PRODUCED BEFORE A.O. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECORDS THIS FACT AS REPRODUCED: THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND INFORMATION AS CALLED FR OM TIME TO TIME WAS FILED AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM WITH REFERENCE TO THE DETAILS FILED AND WERE ALSO PRODU CED AND EXAMINED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. AS FAR AS THE REASONS ADVANCED FOR REJECTION OF THE BOOKS THE CLARIFICATION OF ASSESSEE READ WITH THE OBSERVATION OF AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PURCHASE SHOWN IN LEDGER ACCOUNT AT RS.1,41,73,800/- DULY TALLIED WITH THOSE SHOWN IN P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAS CREDENCE. THE OBSERVATION THAT SALES/SE RVICE TAX WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAS NOT REDU CED THE PROFIT SHOWN IN ANY WAY. THE PROFIT SHOWN IS AT 5%. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IS AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SERVICE TAX OF DURING THE YE AR WHICH HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYME NT AND SAME HAS BEEN CLUBBED WITH RAW MATERIAL SERVICE TAX CERTIFICATES ENCLOSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT NO MATERIAL DISCR EPANCY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE DULY AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE A.O. ALONG WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. NEEDLESS TO REPEAT THAT EVEN IF, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, THE AOS OBSERVATION THAT SALES/SERVICE TAX WAS NOT DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS IS BELIEVED, IT WOULD ALSO NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROFITS SHOWN. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS ESTIMATION OF PROFITS @ 10% WAS NOT RIGHTLY MADE AN D HEREBY VACATED. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS P ASSED A WELL REASONED AND ITA NO.378(ASR)/2012 4 SPEAKING ORDER, WHICH REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22ND NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22ND NOVEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. ABDUL RASHID, PULBAMA, SRINAGAR. 2. THE ACIT, CIR.3, SRINAGAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.