Nasib Singh, Ganjam V. ITO, Ganjam

ITA 509/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 50922114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 509 / CTK ./201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI S .V. MEHROTRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) , AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 5 09 / CTK / 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 - 20 0 7 NASIB S INGH,.................................. ..................... .. .APP ELL ANT HILLPATNA, BERHAMPUR, GANJAM - 760 004 [PAN : A OKPS 416 3 G ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER,..................... ..... .... ........ . RESPONDENT WARD - 2, BERHAMPUR, ODISHA APPEARANCES BY: SHRI GAUTAM SAHOO , A .R. , FO R THE ASSESSEE SHRI S.C. MOHANTY , D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 13 , 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 15 , 201 4 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , BERHAMPUR, ODISHA IN APPEAL NO. 0032/08 - 09 DATED 24 . 0 7 .20 1 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 . 2. SHRI GAUTAM SAHOO , A.R., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI S.C. MOHANTY, D.R., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 3 . I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NON - AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES AND CONSEQUENTLY THE TRUE PROFIT COULD NOT BE DEDUCED. IT WAS I.T.A. NO. 509 / CTK ./201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES NET PROFIT AT 5% ON THE GROSS RECEIPT S AS DISCLOSED BY TH E ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO COMPARATIVE CASE HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING THE ASSESSEES INCOME. LD. A . R . PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BADRI NARAYAN S AHA IN ITA NO. 30/CTK/2003 DATED 29.07.2004, WHICH WAS THE CASE OF A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT 2.5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADOPTED. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSIO N THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DELAYED BY 0 4 DAYS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE REASON WAS THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE NOTING OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN HIS OFFICE DIARY IN RESPECT OF LAST DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 4. IN REPLY, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE DELAY WAS CONDONED . LD. D.R. ON MERIT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A S IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DELAY IS ON ACCOUNT OF A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DELAY IS NOT ON THE FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY STANDS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ON MERIT. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHO WS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT USED ANY COMPARATIVE METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE ASSESSEES INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO DOES NOT SHOW ANY COMPARATIVE METHOD BEING USED. FURTHER AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLOD GE THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF THE REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) STANDS CONFIR MED. HOWEVER, THE NET PROFIT RATE AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) I.T.A. NO. 509 / CTK ./201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 3 OF 3 STANDS REDUCED TO 2.5% RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BADRI NARAYAN SAHA REFERRED TO SUPRA, WHICH IS ALSO A CASE OF A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH OCTOBER , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - S .V. MEHROTRA GEORGE MATHA N ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 15 TH D AY OF OCTO BER , 201 4 COPIES TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK LAHA/SR. P.S.