Rajesh Kumar Prop., Karnal V. ITO, Karnal

ITA 4160/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7012 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: REGISTERED
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4160/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 RAJESH KUMAR, PROP. SHIV SHAKTI TRADING CO. NEW GRAIN MARKET, INDRI, KARNAL DIST. PAN: ADNPK 5057H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KARNAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI F.R. MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD AO IS ILLEGAL, ARB ITRARY HAS BEEN PASSED IN A HASTE AND HAS IGNORED BASIC ASPECT S AND FACTS OF THE CASE & ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME, THUS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. 2) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING ANY INF IRMITY IN THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 44 AB ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS WRONGLY AND ARBITRARILY MADE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 BY APPLYING ITA NO.4160/DEL/2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 A N.P RATE OF 12% AND THE LD C.I.T (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE RATE OF 8%. 3) THAT THE A.O. WITHOUT GIVING ANY COMPARABLE CASE HAS ARBITRARILY APPLIED A N.P. RATE OF 12% AS AGAINST 2 .18% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE & THE LD C.I.T (APPEALS) HAS WITHOU T ANY BASIS CONFIRMED THE RATE 8% AGAINST THE 2.18%. 4) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE PAST HIST ORY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF WORK UNDERTAKEN, HAS COMPUTED, WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL M ATERIAL, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT A FLAT NET PROFIT RATE OF 12%, AND THE LD C.I.T (APPEALS) HAS REDUCE IT FROM 12% TO 8%, WITHO UT ANY JUDICIOUS APPLICATION OF MIND CONFIRMED THE RATE 8% . 5) THAT THE A.O HAS VERY EXCESSIVELY APPLIED A N.P R ATE OF 12% WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS AGAINST 2.18% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE & THE LD C.I.T (APPEALS) REDUCE THE RATE FROM 12% T O 8%. THIS IS VERY MUCH HIGH COMPARE TO PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSES SEE. 6) THAT THE ASSESSMENT AS MADE U/S 144 IS FACTUALLY WRONG AND LEGALLY BAD AND AS SUCH LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 7) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, DELETE, CONCEDE , MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEA RING OF APPEAL. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 11.01.2017 , BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS REPEATEDLY SENT TO THE A SSESSEE BY REGISTERED A.D. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, THERE IS OPTION BUT TO HEAR T HE APPEAL EX PARTE . ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(AP PEALS) HAS EXAMINED ITA NO.4160/DEL/2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 ALL THE ISSUES IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER AND THE LD. D R PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEA LS), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES IN DISP UTE RAISED BEFORE US IN DETAIL BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER. SINCE NO INFIR MITY IS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NEW DELHI, DATED, THE 12 TH JANUARY, 2017. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.