RAKESH CHOUDHARY, Jaipur V. CIT, Alwar

ITA 770/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4822 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

+VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 770/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 RAKESH CHOUDHARY, PROP.- M/S CHOUDHARY CEMENT CORP., OPP. HERO HONDA AGENCY, P.O. KOTPUTLI, DISTRICT- JAIPUR (RAJ). CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BEHROR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AEXPC 1237 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/12/2016 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/12/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2016 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE A. Y. 2011-12, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLE GROUND OF THE APPEAL, WHICH IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE EX PARTE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA 770/JP/2016_ RAKESH CHOUDHARY VS ITO 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMED TO BE A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND ENGAGED IN TRADING OF CE MENT. ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT WAS MADE ON 14/3/2014 AT A INCOME OF RS. 10,37,250/- BY APPLYING NP RATE @ 10% ON THE TOTAL T URNOVER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF NP RA TE @ 8% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 1,03,72,533/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 8,29,803/- WAS SUSTAINED. RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE CIT(A)S FINDI NG IS AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WEL L AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE D UE DATE AND THEREFORE A NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 16-10-2012. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN IN THI S CASE IS 30-09-2011. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLIANCE BEING MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE AO AFTER APPLYING A NP RATE OF 10% ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS. 1,03,72,533. THE QUANTUM OF SALES WAS OBTAINED BY THE AO FROM THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR, WHEREIN THE SALES TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THIS PERIOD AT SALES OF RS. 1,03,72,533 WAS PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. ITA 770/JP/2016_ RAKESH CHOUDHARY VS ITO 3 4.4 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BRI EF SUBMISSIONS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SAME THAT NO BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE NO P&L A/C, BALANCE SHE ET AND AUDIT REPORT WERE EVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO OR IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, I HOLD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN FRAMING THE BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE. 4.5 THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, A G.P. RATE OF 3.80% WAS DECLARED AN D AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS DEFECTS NOTED BY THE AO, A LUMP SUM TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 50,000 WAS MADE BY THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIN D THAT IN THIS YEAR NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED, NO COMPLIANCE TO ANY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WA S EVER MADE AND THEREFORE THE BENEFIT OF PAST HISTORY CAN NOT ENTIRELY BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, I F IND THAT NP RATE OF 10% APPLIED BY THE AO IS SLIGHTLY O N THE HIGHER SIDE AND HOLD THAT IT WOULD BE JUST & FAIR TO APPLY A NP RATE OF 8% ON THE SALES OF RS. 1,03,72,533. IT WOULD RESULT IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,29,8 03 OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 10,37,253/- ITA 770/JP/2016_ RAKESH CHOUDHARY VS ITO 4 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. NON E ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. AT T HE OUTSET, THE LD SR. DR WAS HEARD. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS AND HEARING OF T HE LD. SR. DR, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHE REIN HE HAS SUSTAINED THE NP RATE @ 8% ON THE SALES OF RS. 1,03,72,533/-, WHICH IS JUSTIFIED AND FAIR. ACCORDINGLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/12/2016. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 29 TH DECEMBER, 2016 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAKESH CHOUDHARY, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, BEHROR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 770/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR