ITO, Jaipur V. GOVIND ENGINEERING WORK, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4829 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAM SWAROOP BABU DHK
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 521/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S GOVIND ENGINEERING WORKS, E-325, ROAD. NO. 16, V.K.I. AREA, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AADFG 1374 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAM SWAROOP BABU. LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2016 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/12/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2016 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR T HE A.Y. 2009-10, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLE GROUND OF THE A PPEAL, WHICH IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,90,868/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK RECEIPT AS REFLECTED IN FORM NO. 26AS. ITA 521/JP/2016_ ITO VS M/S GOVIND ENGINEERING WORKS 2 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE D NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND THER EAFTER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 34,90,868/- BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME WHICH WAS APPEARING IN FORM 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), W HO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANTS CLAIM IS THAT ON THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER , SMT. KANTA DEVI MANAK BOHRA, WHO WAS THE ONLY OTHER PARTNER OF THE FIRM, M/S GOVIND ENGINEERING WORKS, THE FIRM WAS DISSOLVED. THE SAID FIRM WAS THEN CONVERTED INTO A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN WITH MR. RAJENDRA MANA K BOHRA, AS ITS PROPRIETOR. THE DISSOLUTION DEED AND INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY SHRI RAJENDRA MANAK BOHRA WERE PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS BANK ACCOUNT THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM SH RI RAJENDRA MANAK BOHRA HAD INFORMED THE BANK AND A CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK WAS ALSO PRODUCED CERTIFYI NG THAT DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2009, SH RI RAJENDRA KUMAR MANKA BOHRA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S GOVIN D ITA 521/JP/2016_ ITO VS M/S GOVIND ENGINEERING WORKS 3 ENGINEERING WORKS HAD OPERATED THE BANK CC ACCOUNT NO. 51022357300. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CONTRACT WORK OF RS.34,90,868/-, INFORMATION OF WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WIT H THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN FILED BY THE SURVIVING PARTNER, S HRI RAJENDRA MANAK BOHRA IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CAPACITY . I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSES SEE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, ALL THE FACTS AS ABOVE HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND ARE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS DISSOLVED, EVIDENCE OF SAME IS FILED, CONTRACT WORK EXECUTED HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL RETUR N AND ALSO THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN USED FOR THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.34,90,868/- I.E. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF JOB WORK RECEIPT AS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS ARE DELETED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. THE LD DR. HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RE ITERATED THE ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA 521/JP/2016_ ITO VS M/S GOVIND ENGINEERING WORKS 4 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. M/S GOVIND EN GINEERING WORKS WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF RAJENDRA MANAK BOHRA AND HIS MOTHER SMT. KANTA DEVI MANAK BOHRA. HOWEVER, THIS FIRM WAS DISSOLVED W.E .F. 31/03/2008. THEREAFTER, THE BUSINESS WAS DONE BY PROPRIETORSHIP C ONCERN OF RAJENDRA MANAK BOHRA. THE CONTRACT WORK OF RS. 34,90 ,868/- WAS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE PROP RIETOR OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJENDRA MANAK BOHRA IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CAP ACITY. SINCE THE PARTNERSHIP WAS DISSOLVED ON 31/3/2008. THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTRACT E XECUTED DURING THE PERIOD 01/4/2008 TO 31/3/2009 WERE REFLECTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI RAJENDRA MANAK BOHRA IN THE PROPRIET ORSHIP CONCERNED, THEREFORE, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL AND THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/12/2016. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 23 RD DECEMBER, 2016 *RANJAN ITA 521/JP/2016_ ITO VS M/S GOVIND ENGINEERING WORKS 5 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S GOVIND ENGINEERING WORKS, JAIPUR . 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 521/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR