Rajeev Kumar Singh, GONDA V. ITO, GONDA

ITA 597/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83334 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Section: 194C; 145; 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.597/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH, AVAS VIKAS COLONY, GONDA. PAN:BCNPS1014E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. K. RAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 21/08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 /09/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I I , LUCKNOW DATED 13 /0 5 /20 11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 200 7 . 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. 2. BECAUSE THERE BEING NO MATERIAL FORMING ANY BELIEF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO, THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS VOID ABINITO, THE REASSESSMENT FRAME D IS BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. 3. BECAUSE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,73,944/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES AND NET PROFIT ON THE SUPPRESSED SALES. 2 4. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,73,944/ - AS WORKED OUT BY THE CIT(A) AND UPHELD BY HIM IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND BE DELETED. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPOR TED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 1 & 2, AS PER PARA 5(1) OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THIS FINDING IS GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN VIEW OF DIFFERENCE IN PAYMENTS AS SHOWN IN AUDITED ACCOUNT AND AS PER FORM 16 AS PER REASONS RECORDED U/S 147, NO PLAUSIBLE AND ACC EPTABLE COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ADVOCATE. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT FOR THIS REASON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS BOOK RESULTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FROM THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT U/S 194C AT RS.51,15,381/ - BUT AS PER FORM 16 ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT U/S 194C WAS SHOWN AT RS.1 ,02,72,818/ - HAVING A DIFFERENCE OF RS.51,57,437/ - , WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS IS A REASON RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. CONSIDERING THIS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REOPENING I N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IS VALID AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 ARE REJECTED. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3, WE FIND THAT THE ORIGINAL AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 15 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIP T ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION AT RS.51,15,381.66 AND ON 3 PAGE NO. 4 IS ANOTHER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 148 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION WORK AT RS.1,02,72,818/ - . IN THE FIRST PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN INCOME OF RS.1,50,160/ - AND IN THE SECOND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS.2,20,650/ - . HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION WO RK IS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING REJECTION OF BOOKS IS PROPER. ONCE THE BOOKS ARE REJECTED, THE INCOME HAS TO BE ESTIMATED. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADOPTING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IS VERY REASONABLE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 /09/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR