M/s Front Line Engineers, Gwalior V. I.T.O.-1(2), Gwalior

ITA 57/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0359 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 57/AGRA/2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. FRONT LINE ENGINEERS, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, C/O SHRI ANIL MAHESHWARI, 1(2), GWALIOR. NEAR LAXMI HOTEL, SHINDE KI CHHAWANI, LASHKAR, GWALIOR(PAN: AABFF 0971E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 28.02.2013 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 05.11.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED U/S. 44AB AND ARE PRESENTED BEFORE THE ITO EVEN THOUGH THE ITO HAS RE JECTED THE BOOKS AND ASSESSED THE NET PROFIT @ 8% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 6% OF GROSS PROFIT AND GIVE RELIEF OF RS.90,728/- TO THE APPELLANT. TH E NET ADDITIONS OF RS.2,72,185/- AFTER APPEAL EFFECT AND PENALTY IMPOS ED U/S. 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND MUST BE DELETED. 2. THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN UPHOL DING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,644/- MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST ON ITA NO. 57/AGRA/2013 2 REFUND RECEIVED FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ADDITIONS OF RS.3,644/-, MUST BE DELETED. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.68,000/- MADE BY ITO FOR CASH DEPOS ITED IN UCO BANK ACCOUNT. THE ADDITIONS OF RS.68,000/- MADE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN BANK ACCOUNT MUST BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A CONTRACTOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS, VOUCHERS AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO, THEREFORE, REJEC TED THE BOOK RESULTS U/S. 145 AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 8% OF THE TOTAL GROSS RE CEIPTS AND COMPUTED NET PROFIT AT RS.3,62,913/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) THAT SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED, THEREFORE, ADD ITION MAY BE DELETED. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS WAS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE NET PROFIT RATE AND DIRECTED TO APPLY 6% AS RAT E OF PROFIT TO ESTIMATE THE REASONABLE PROFIT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT RS.2, 72,185/- GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.90,728/-. THE AO FURTHER MA DE ADDITION OF RS.3644/- IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON REFUND RECEIVED FROM THE INC OME-TAX DEPARTMENT, BUT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT DUE TO MISTAKE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE DISCLOSED AND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS ITA NO. 57/AGRA/2013 3 CONTENDED THAT THIS WAS DISCLOSED AS INCOME UNDER T HE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES, BUT THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ADDITION W AS MADE IN A SUM OF RS.68,000/- WHICH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN UCO BANK AND THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE IN CASH BOOK, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT PRODUCE CASH BOOK BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.68,000/-. THE ABOVE THREE GROUNDS ARE RAISED TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE THREE ADDITIONS. 3. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FORWARDE D STATING THAT DUE TO HEALTH PROBLEM OF ACCOUNTANT, REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND INFOR MATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THEREFORE, PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE, WHICH I S REJECTED. THE APPEAL IS HEARD EXPARTE. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF FINDINGS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDI TIONS ABOVE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS ITA NO. 57/AGRA/2013 4 BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, BOOK RESUL TS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION. BOOK RESULTS WERE RIGHTL Y REJECTED U/S. 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DID NOT CHALLENGE THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. WHEN THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS, THE AO IS BO UND TO ESTIMATE THE REASONABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RI GHTLY DONE IN THIS CASE. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.3644/-, THE ASSESSEE PRA CTICALLY ADMITTED BEFORE THE AO IN NOT SHOWING THE SAME AMOUNT IN INCOME AND WHATEV ER PLEA WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. AS RE GARDS THE CASH DEPOSIT IN UCO BANK, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT CASH IS AVAILABLE IN CASH BOOK, WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THEREFORE, AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE CASH BOOK COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO VER IFICATION. THESE FINDINGS OF FACT WOULD CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A WRONG REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY DOCUMENT OR INFORMATION WITH HIM TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ADDITIONS RIGHT FROM THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT TILL THE STAGE OF SECOND APPEAL. THEREFORE, WHETHER THE ACCOUNTANT WA S ILL OR NOT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. SUCH A TEND ENCY TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT ON FRIVOLOUS REASONS IS HIGHLY DEPRECATED. ADJOURNMENT IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING AND CONFI RMING ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS ON ITA NO. 57/AGRA/2013 5 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY