Sh. Rajendra Singh, Pithoragarh V. ITO, Pithoragarh

ITA 4010/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6531 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEDOBINA CHAUDHARI
• Keywords: Business income; Condonation of delay
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4010& 4011 /DEL./201 6 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2012 - 13 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SM C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R ITA NO. 4010 & 4011 /DEL./201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 12 - 13 RAJENDRA SINGH S/O BHAGWATI PRASAD SINGH, VILL. HAT P.O. GANGOLIHAT, PITHORAGARH VS. ITO PITHORAGARH (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: AA HPP5652J ) ASSESSEE BY: DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV., SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV. REVENUE BY: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06 / 0 3 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 / 0 3 /201 7 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. TH ESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) HALDWANI ONE ON QUANTUM VIDE ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 AND ANOTHER VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE FOR THE SAME A.Y. ON PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. PAGE 2 OF 8 2. THERE ARE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON QUANTUM AS WELL AS PENALTY APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. I HAVE FOUND THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND THE ASSESSEE . I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING BOTH THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IS AGAINST THE ADDITI ON SUSTAINED ON THE GROSS PROFIT WHICH WAS DECLARED AT 6% AND WHICH WAS SUSTAINED AT 8% BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT : - IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE APPELLANT ENJOYS INCOME FROM CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS. DURING THE YEAR APPELLATE DECLARED TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS AT RS. 22,95,3000/ - ON WHICH NET PROFIT AT RS. 1,83,600/ - SHOWN ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT AND NET PROFIT WAS DISCLOSED @ 8%. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELL ANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE LOW NP RATE DISCLOSED FROM CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS AS COMPARED TO OTHER ASSESSEE SHOWN AS 13% TO 15% IN THAT AREAS BY THE A.O. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT HE RUNS CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS ON SMALL SCALE ONLY FOR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT OF UTTARAKHAND, MOREOVER HE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOK ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS FOR HIS BUSINESS AND IT WAS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED, THEREFORE, HE IS NOT I N A POSITION TO PRODUCE PAGE 3 OF 8 BILLS/VOUCHERS/ RECEIPTS IN THEIR SUPPORT OF RESPECTIVE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, TO BUY PEACE OF MIND HE AGREES FOR APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE AT 12% ON CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE FACTS THE A.O. IMPOSED NET PROFIT FROM CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS OF TOTAL RECEIPT RS. 22,95,300/ - BY APPLYING NP RATE OF 12% WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 2,75,500/ - GIVING EXTRA PROFIT OF RS. 91,900/ - (RS. 2,75,500/ - - RS. 1,83,600/ - ) AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE S INCOME. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) SUST AINS THE NET PROFIT AT 8% BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS ABOVE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS HOWEVER SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING BUSINESS INCOME AND IT WAS A NO ACCOUNTS CASE. ALT HOUGH INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED U/S 44AD, HOWEVER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT AGREED TO ASSESSMENT AT AN NET PROFIT OF 12%, WHICH IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER BY THE A.O. SECTION 44AD ALSO PROVIDES FOR SHOWING INCOME AT HIGHER AMOUNT THAN 8% ON OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WHY AFTER THE AMOUNT WAS AGREED FOR ADDITION DURING A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO W THE SAME IS NOT JU STIFIED. ACCORDINGLY ITS CONTENTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O TO THE NET PROFI T IS CONFIRMED. PAGE 4 OF 8 5. AS REGARDS THE SECOND ADDITION THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE AS UNDER: - IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 60,000/ - IN ALL TO MEET HIS P ERSONAL INVESTMENT AND DAY TO DAY HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, SOCIAL FUNCTION, ON CHILDREN EDUCATION ETC. FURTHER THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HIS FAMILY CONSISTS OF HIMSELF, WIFE, TWO SONS WHO ARE STUDYING IN LOCAL SCHOOL, HE GOT SMALL FAMILY AND, THEREFORE, DRAWING OF RS. 60,000/ - IS ADEQUATE TO MEET HIS FAMILY S DAILY NEED. THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O AND HE HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT SCENARIO DAY TO DAY LIVING COST, SOCIAL FUNCTION, CHILDREN EDUCATION IS V ERY HIGH EVEN FOR AVERAGE FAMILIES. APPELLANT GOT FOUR MEMBER - FAMILY HAVING TWO SONS SCHOOL GOING, THEN APPELLANT S HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ARE APPARENTLY INADEQUATE. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS POINTED OUT HIGH COST OF LIVING AND LOW HOUSE H OLD EXPENSES, THEN THE HE ULTIMATELY AGREED FOR AN RS . 10,000/ - PER MONTH I.E (1,20,000 - 60,000 = 60,000) ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/ - TO HIS TOTAL INCOME TO COVER UP POSSIBLE LEAKAGES TOWARDS, IF ANY, TOWARDS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 6. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. PAGE 5 OF 8 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE FACTS OF THE CASE. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION AND TO COMPLY THE NET PROFIT @ 12% BUT THE SAME WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO 8% BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHEN THE SAME WAS CONTESTED BEFORE HIM. IN FACT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O R BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO COMPLY SUCH A RATE OF NET PROFIT AT 8%. NO COMPARABLE CASES AND NO PAST RESULTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION IS PURELY SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THIS ACCOUNT AND ADDITION SO SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 8. AS REGARDS THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECO RD AND THEREFORE SUCH CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT REASONING AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. THUS BOTH THE ADDITIONS I.E. TRADING ADDITIONS AND HOUSE HOLD ADDITIONS ARE ON ESTIMATION BASIS AND THERE FORE THE SAME ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4011/D/2016 IS ALLOWED. PAGE 6 OF 8 9. NOW WE TAKE THE CASE IN ITA NO. 4010/DEL/2016 WITH REGARD TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY WHICH IS @ 200% WHICH IS BEING CONTESTED ONLY ON THE TRADING ADDITIONS. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY FOR ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 10. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF PENALTY, SINCE THE ADDITION IN THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN DELETED, THE PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE AND THEREFORE THE PEN ALTY SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED ON THE SAID GROUND AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 11. THOUGH IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED INCLUDING THE RETURN ED INCOME AND MY ATTENTION WAS INVITED AT ASSESSMENT ORD ER PAGE 13 AND PENALTY ORDER PAGE 2, WHICH SHOWS THE NON APPLICATION OF MIND. THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. SRILEKHA DHAMANI VS. DCIT REPORTED 2015 175 TTJ 332, MUMBAI . 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVI ED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED THE SATISFACTION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TRIVENI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 OF 8 (2014) 369 ITR 360 (ALLAHABAD) IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE I.E. DUE TO NON APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , NOT RECORDING THE SATISFACTION AND ESTIMATED ADDITIONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE PENALTY ON MERIT OR SO CANNOT BE LEVIED AND PENALTY SO LEVIED IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 4010 & 4011/DEL/2016 ARE ALLOWED. 7 . P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 7 . 0 3 .201 7. S D / - ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMB E R DATED: 0 7 . 0 3 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PAGE 8 OF 8 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 6 .0 3 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 7 .0 3 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 8 .3.2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8 .3.2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.