Remuk Engineers, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 28(3),kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 572/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83115 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GAYASUDDIN ANSARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH S MC, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ] ITA NO.572/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) REMUK ENGINEERS . -VERSUS- I.T.O., WARD-28(3), KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AADFR 9044 A) FOR THE APPELLANT: NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT: MD.GAYASUDDIN ANSARI, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2014. ORDER THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF O RDER OF CIT(A)-XIV KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.138/CIT(A)-XIV/KOL/09-10 DATED 21.01.2013. ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED BY I.T.O. WARD-28 (3), KOLKATA U/S 144/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIDE ITS ORDER DA TED 17.09.2009. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,01,214/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF TDS CERTIFICATES. 3. I HAVE HEARD LD. SR. DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y.2006-07 NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TOTAL LABOUR CHARGES AT RS.5,28,925/- AS PER TRADING AND P&L A/C. THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF TDS CERTIFICATES WHILE ALLOWING CREDIT FOR THE SAME, NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL GROSS L ABOUR CHARGES RECEIPTS WAS RS.9,30,139/- AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE. ACCORDING TO AO, THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY A SUM OF RS.4,01,214/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN T HE LABOUR RECEIPT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND LABOUR RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE S. ACCORDINGLY, AO MADE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENTIAL RECEIPTS. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PR EFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- ITA NO.572/KOL/2013 REMUK ENGINEERS A.YR.2006-07 2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETECTED FROM THE TDS CERTIFICATE THAT TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF LABOUR CHARGES WAS RS.9,30,139/- AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.5,28,925/- ONLY. THUS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED DECLARAT ION OF LABOUR CHARGES BY A SUM OF RS.4,01,214/-. DESPITE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES HAVIN G BEEN ACCORDED TO THE APPELLANT, HE DID NOT GIVE ANY RECONCILIATION BEFOR E THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS AMO UNTING TO RS.4,01,214/-. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS NOT SUPPORTE D BY ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FOLLOWED THE MERCANTILE METHOD OF AC COUNTING. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE NOR HAS HE GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION TO CLARIFY THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION OF RS.4,01, 214/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED LABOUR CHARGES IS CONFIRMED. HENCE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES GROSS RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARG ES IS AT RS.9,30,139/-. THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A), BOTH ADMITTED THAT THESE ARE LABOUR CHARGES RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT AND NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THESE ARE LABOU R RECEIPTS AS ASSESSED BY THE AO. ONCE THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT, BEING DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE AMOUNT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT DISCLOSED AND AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFI CATE, ARE ONLY CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES, CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY APPLYING PROFIT RATE. THE ASSESSEE BEING A PETTY CONTRACTOR, I DIRECT THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENTIAL RECEIPTS @ 8% AND N OT THE ENTIRE RECEIPT AS UNDISCLOSED. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.09.2014 SD/- [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 05.09.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) ITA NO.572/KOL/2013 REMUK ENGINEERS A.YR.2006-07 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. REMUK ENGINEERS, 3, PASUPATI BHATTACHARJEE ROAD, KO LKATA-700034. 2 THE I.T.O.-WARD-28(3), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XIV, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES