MAHESH LADHA KAROTRA, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO 22(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4082/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9103 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4082/MUM/2015 : (A.Y : 2009 - 10) MAHESH LADHA KAROTRA 102, NEELKANTH APT., PLOT NO. 48, SECTOR 19, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI 400706 ( APPELLANT ) PAN : AJRPK7314F VS. ITO - 22(3)(2), MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH DATE OF HEARING : 28/12/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 /01/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 26 , MUMBAI DATED 27.02.2015 , PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI DATED 12.12.2011 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED THAT INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING BY REGISTERED A.D, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE WHILE THE LD. DR APPEARED FOR THE RESPONDENT - REVENUE. NO APPLICAT ION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, FOLLOWING 2 MAHESH LADHA KAROTRA ITA NO. 4082/MUM/2015 RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, THE APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OF EX PARTE QUA THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE AFTER HEA RING THE LD. DR ON MERITS. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON CALCULATION OF ADHOC PROFIT @ 10% OF TURNOVER AND NO LOSS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST SUCH ALLOWANCE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS.1,90,670 AS BUSINESS INCOME. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OF AS FOLLOWS. THE APP ELLANT - INDIVIDUAL IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AT PLOT NO. 1, SHIV DARSHAN, NAVI MUMBAI IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. MITUL ENTERPRISES. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT GOT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED FROM THE COPIES OF AGREEMENTS FILED THAT AS SESSEE HAD SOLD FLATS AT LESSER PRICE THAN THE MARKET RATES AS PER THE VALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTRAR WHILE REGISTERING THE SALE AGREEMENTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BOOKS OF 3 MAHESH LADHA KAROTRA ITA NO. 4082/MUM/2015 ACCOUNT , THE PROFIT DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT ACCE PTED AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED AS UNRELI ABLE . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF FLATS. APART THEREFROM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND, THEREFORE, SUCH INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,90,670/ - WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE AFORESAID TWO ACTION S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ALSO BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 5. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL, I FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED FINDINGS THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY COGENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE BOOK RESULTS AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS. FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW PLEA RAISED BEFORE ME, I FIND THAT CIT(A) WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, I HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE FAILS IN ITS APPEAL. 6. RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 T H JANUARY, 2017. S D / - ( G.S. PANNU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 6 T H JANUARY , 201 7 * SSL * 4 MAHESH LADHA KAROTRA ITA NO. 4082/MUM/2015 COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI