Akshaya Kumar Samant, Angul V. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar

ITA 68/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7232 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: N P SAHU
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S.68 & 69 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 AKSHAYA KUMAR SAMANT, 6 TH LANE, AMALAPADA, PO: DIST: ANGUL. VS. ITO, WARD 2(3) BHUBANESWSAR. PAN/GIR NO. (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.P.SAHU, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20 /01/ 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 /01/ 2017 O R D E R BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR , BOTH DATED 30.10.2015 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 2010, RESPECTIVELY . 2. THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BARRED BY 23 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION DATED 29.2.2016 IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL S . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT , I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL S WI THIN THE STIPULATED TIME. LD D.R. DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. I, THE REFORE, CONDONE 2 ITA NOS.68 & 69 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 THE DELAY OF 23 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL S FOR HEARING FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3 . THE CO MMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME FROM CRANE AT 10% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.18,91,856/ - IN A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND 10 % OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.27,20,732/ - IN A.Y. 2009 - 10. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE HAD DISCLOSED INCOME FROM THREE TRUCKS U/S.44AE AT RS.1,26,000/ - AND INCOME FROM TWO CRANES AT RS.1,20,000/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE A SSESSEE HAD SHOWN IN COME U/S.44AE FROM TWO TRUCKS AT RS.1,26,000/ - AND FROM TWO CRANES AT RS.1,80,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.18,91,856/ - FROM CRANE OPERATING BUSINESS, ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM CRANE OPERATING BUSINESS AT 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.18,91,856/ - AND ARRIVED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 89,185/ - FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RENT FROM CRANES AT RS.27,20,732/ - , ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM CRANE BUSINESS AT 10% OF GROSS RECEIPTS AND ADDED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.92,073/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 5. ON APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 ITA NOS.68 & 69 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 6. BEFORE ME, BOTH THE PA RTIES AGREED THAT THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS.89,185/ - FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND RS.92,073/ - FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXCESSIVE AND ADDITION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AT 5 0 % OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EACH OF THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES, I MODIFY THE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.44,593/ - FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND RS.46,036/ - FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. GROUN D NO.4 OF THE APPEAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND ALSO MADE AN ENDORSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL APPENDED TO FORM NO.36 OF THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THIS GRO UND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 / 01/2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 20 /01 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 4 ITA NOS.68 & 69 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : AKSHAYA KUMAR SAMANT, 6 TH LANE, AMALAPADA, PO: DIST: ANGUL. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD 2(3) BHUBANESWSAR. 3. THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR 4. CIT - 2, BHUBANESWAR. 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//