ITO, BARMER V. Shri Barkat Ali, BARMER

ITA 466/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5248 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S L MOURYA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.466/JODH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BARMER, SANGI BHAWAN, RAI COLONY ROAD, BARMER VS. SH. BARKAT ALI, NEW HAZI MOTORS, OPP. UNION OFFICE, BARMER PAN :AEKPA0826N APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. MOURYA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 14.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.03.16 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-2, JODHPUR DATED 13-07-2015 PASSED IN APPEA L NO.764/2013-14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI S. L. MOURYA, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, LEARNED AR REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO HAD POINTED OUT DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS MAINTAINED BY THE 2 ITA NO.466/JODH/2015 ASSESSEE AND HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 (3) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 12.5% OF THE TURN OVER SUBJECT TO FURTHER DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION C LAIMED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAD CONFIRMED REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAD REJECTED THE ESTIMATION OF THE NET PROFIT BY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAD POINTE D OUT ANY COMPARABLE CASE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DI RECTED THE AO TO ACCEPT THE DECLARED RESULTS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD DISCLOSED NET PROFIT RATE OF 11.83%, WHEREAS THE AO HAD ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 12.5% WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY COMPARATIVE CASE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS LIABLE TO BE S USTAINED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NO COMPARATIVE CASE HAS B EEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACT ION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ACCEPT THE DECLARED RESULTS IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 3 ITA NO.466/JODH/2015 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED: 14 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 15.03.16 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16.03.16 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 16.03.16 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 16.03. 16 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 16.03.16 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.03.16 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER