Sanjay Kumar, Uttar Pradesh V. ACIT, Noida

ITA 4008/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6833 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: KISLAYA PARASAR ADVS
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4008/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SANJAY KUMAR VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, B-178, GAMMA-01 A-2D, SECTOR-24, GREATER NOIDA, NOIDA- 201301 UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: AADPPK1373E) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANAT KAPOOR & SH. KISLAYA PARASAR, ADVS. REVENUE BY :SH. RAVI KANT GUPTA, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 31.3.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE REVISED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 18,10,307/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOWER NET PROFIT RATE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN HAS DECLARED TH E CORRECT NET PROFIT RATE BASED ON THE ACTUAL FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY T HE 2 AO OF 4.5% IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND BASED ON MERE GUESSWORK. 3. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,10,307/- WAS AGREED BEFORE THE AO AND NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A) UND ER AN INCORRECT AND WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF FACTS AND LAW AND ON AN INCORRECT ADVISE GIVEN TO THE APPELLA NT. THIS ADDITION IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 211 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND IN THIS BEHALF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D THE APPLICATION ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN DISP UTE. AFTER PERUSING THE SAID APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE THE DELAY WAS OCC URRED, HENCE, THE DELAY IN DISPUTE IS CONDONED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED RETURN DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 14,70,073/- ON 17.9 .2010. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U /S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 01.9.2011 AND SERVED UPON THE ASS ESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES U/S. 142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIO NNAIRE WERE ALSO ISSUED REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DE TAILS / INFORMATION. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATT ENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE NECESSARY REPLIES TO THE QUERIES OF THE AO. 3 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORKS. DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT HAS SHOWN GROSS TURNOVER / GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 7,46,78,577/-, INDIRECT INCOME OF RS. 1,93,963/- AN D NET PROFIT AT RS. 17,20,072/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, DETAI LS OF BANK ACCOUNTS, HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, DETAIL OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 7,46,78,577/- AND INDIRECT INCOME OF RS. 1,93,963/-, LEDGER ACCOU NT OF WAGES, SALARY ETC. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLU DING COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, AND DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF WAGES AND SALARY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HAT WERE LOOKED INTO AND VERIFIED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, AO NOTED THAT MANY OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT DULY SUPPORTED BY PRO PER BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND NP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESEEE HIS ALSO LOW. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR A PPLYING NP RATE OF 4.5% SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. ON CONTRACT RECEI PTS OF RS. 7,46,78,577/- NET PROFIT @4.5% COMES TO RS. 33,60,5 36/-. THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS. 18,10,307/- WAS MADE TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 38,16,385/- U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.3.2013. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.3.2016 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE 4 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ADDITI ON OF RS. 18,10,307/- WAS AGREED BEFORE THE AO AND NOT PRESS ED THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER AN INCORRECT AND WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF FACT S AND LAW AND ON INCORRECT ADVISE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THI S ADDITION IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AND STATED THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHI CH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF TH E LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 18,10,307/ - WHICH WAS AGREED BEFORE THE AO AND NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RELATING TO INCORRECT AND WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF FACTS AND LAW AND ON INCORRECT ADVISE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, I FIND T HERE IS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE THEN ASSE SSEES COUNSEL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD TO SUBSTANTIA TE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CO NTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECT THE SAME AND ACC ORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND REJECTED, AS T HE THEN LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT HE IS WILLING 5 NOT TO PRESS THE APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION O F RS. 18,10,307/- AND TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT THROUGH THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALREADY AGREED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01/06/2018. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 01/06/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES