Susanta Saha, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-40(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 714/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4344 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K SINGH
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHR A RAVI, JM ITA NO.714/KOL/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-2007) SUSANTA SAHA, 22, CHAWAL PATTY ROAD, KOLKATA-700010 VS. ITO WARD-40(1), KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AZAPS 9860 K ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.K.SINGH, ADVOCATE /REVENUE BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 14/10/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/10/2016 / O R D E R PER M.BALAGANESH, AM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(A)-21, KOLKATA, IN APPEAL NO.1409/ITO,W-40(1)/C IT(A)-21/KOL/14- 15, DATED 03.02.2016 PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF RS.96,716/- ON ESTIMATED BASIS BY THE LD. AO IN THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM CONTRACT WORK. THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE D ECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,03,284/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD JUST SUBM ITTED THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME ALONG WITH RETURN OF IN COME. LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENCLOSED ANY PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY C ALLED FOR THE SAME ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS BY ISSUING STATUTORY NOTIC ES UNDER SECTION 143(2) ITA NO.714/16 2 & 142(1) OF THE ACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE, LD.AO HAD NO OPTION BUT TO RESORT TO FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY, LD. AO DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2 L AKHS AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.96,716/- IN THE ASSESSMENT. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FR OM THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED THEREON . LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD. AR ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.96,466/- WHICH ROUGHLY WORKS OUT TO 25% OF TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.3,91,133/-. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PL ACED A COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006. HE ARGUED THAT IN CASE IF THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO IS SUSTAINED THEN IT WOULD RESULT IN AN ABNORMAL PROFI T FIGURE OF ROUGHLY 50% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS, WHICH IS PRACTICALLY NOT POS SIBLE TO EARN IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IS BEYOND 8% PRESCRIBED U/S.44AD OF THE ACT. 6. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON, NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE REVENUE AND THE REVENUE NOT EVEN FILED ANY ADJOURNM ENT REQUEST EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH A WRITTEN PETITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND ON HEARING THE LD. AR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AR. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS ABS OLUTELY NON- COOPERATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUC ING THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE FORM OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS SUCH AS PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN TO JUS TIFY THE NET PROFIT FROM BUSINESS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND TH AT EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR ITA NO.714/16 3 HAD FILED A COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME AND HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THESE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE LD. AO AND ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT ASSESSEE BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19/10/ 2016. SD/ - (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 19/10/2016 & ()*/PRAKASH MISHRA , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) & ' , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 4 / CIT 5. 567 8 , 8 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 79 / GUARD FILE. 5 //TRUE COPY//