Shri Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, North 24 Parganas V. ITO, Ward - 51(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 724/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8103 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P LAHIRI JCITSR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C , KOLKATA [ () . .. . . .. . , ,, , , ! ''# $% ''# $% ''# $% ''# $% ] ]] ] [BEFORE HONBLE SRI C.D.RAO, AM & HONBLE SRI GE ORGE MATHAN, JM] !' !' !' !' /ITA NO.724/KOL/2011 (%) *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ($- / APPELLANT ) - % - ( /0$- /RESPONDENT) SHRI SHIV KUMAR JAISWAL I.T.O., WARD-51 (2), KOLKATA -VERSUS- KOLKATA (PAN:ACTPJ 0091 P) $- 1 2 /FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SUNIL SURANA /0$- 1 2 /FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI S.P.LAHIRI, JCIT,SR.(DR) 3%4 1 /DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2012. 5* 1 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.10.2012. 6 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. . . .. . ) )) ), , , , PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)- XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 25.11.2010 FOR A.YR. 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS :- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ARBITR ARY, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN COM PLETING THE ORDER EXPARTE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME AT RS. 4020501/- U/S.L44 WHEN THE ASSESSEE DULY COMPLI ED WITH THE REQUISITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE DISALLOWANCE OF VARIO US ITEMS OF EXPENSES, ESTIMATE OF SALES AS WELL AS NET PROFIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ENHANCEMENT OF SALES BY 5% BY RS. 1010606/ AND EVEN OTHERWISE ONLY THE PROFIT IN SUC H ENHANCED SALE COULD HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED AND NOT THE ENHANCED SALES. 5. FOR THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS ON THE WDV OF ASSETS BROUGHT FORWARD ASSETS 6. FOR THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED I N CONFIRMING VARIOUS ADDITION AND ESTIMATE OF INCOME WHEN THE REASON FOR WHICH THE AS SESSMENT WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY BEING AIR INFORMATION WAS FULLY VERIFIED WITH REFER ENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR MAKING OTHER ADDITIONS. 2 7. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE RELIEF PR AYED FOR. 8. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D ASCERTAINING THE SALES APPLIED THE NET PROFIT BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P RODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS SUBJE CT TO COMPULSORY AUDIT AS PER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. WHILE CALCULATING THE NET PROFIT A FTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED SEVERAL EXPENDITURE WHICH WER E RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3.1. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEF ORE LD. CIT(A) BY CONTENDING THAT WHEN ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJE CTED AND NET PROFIT HAS BEEN CALCULATED. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSE SSEE CONTENDED THAT HE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS IS NOT JU STIFIED. HOWEVER HE CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE PROFITS ON ENHANCED SALES HAVE BEEN ESTIMA TED THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES ON VARIOUS ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE ESTIMATED SALES AS WELL AS THE NET PROFIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE FURTHER FILED A COMPARATIVE STATE MENT OF GROSS PROFIT AS WELL AS THE NET PROFIT FOR THE A.YRS. 2002-03 TO 2006-07. THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF HAS SHOWN 1%. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO ACCEPT 1% OF THE NET PRO FIT AND DELETE THE OTHER ADDITIONS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF THE TURN OVER OF GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESEE FOR A.YR S. 2002-03 TO 2006-07 WHICH VARIES FROM 2.51% TO 0.6%, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO ADOPT THE NET PROFIT AT 1.5% OF THE ENHANCED 3 SALES OF RS.2,12,22,733/- AND DIRECT THE AO TO ADOP T THE SAME AND DELETED THE OTHER ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.10.2012. SD/- SD/- [ .''# $% , ] [ .., ] [ GEORGE MATHAN ] [ C. D. RAO ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( ) )) ) DATE: 16.10.2012. R.G.(.P.S.) 4 6 1 /((7 87*9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI SHIV KUMAR JAISWAL, C/O BENGAL STEEL ASSOCIATE S, OGG ROAD, PINKAL, GURULIA, 24 PGS (NORTH), WEST BENGAL 2 THE I.T.O., WARD-51 (2), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT- 4. THE CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA. 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 07 /(/ TRUE COPY, 6%3/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES