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.834/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 11 M/S R. V. CONSTRUCTIONS, 87/248, ACHARYA NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAJFR2426G VS. ITO 2 (3), KANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI HARISH GIDWANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 09/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 0 /07/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) II, KANPUR DATED 30.09.2014 FOR A. Y. 2010 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 7 GROUNDS BUT THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ONLY TWO. FIRST GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,844/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST AND CHARGES, RS. 134,703/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FDR AND RS. 10,047/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FIGURES OF CREDIT IN P/L ACCOUNT. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT ENHANCEMENT MADE BY CIT (A) OF RS. 35 LACS. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 8.5% OF TURNOVER AND ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME AT RS. 2,99,873/ - AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 266,880/ - . HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS U/S 145 (3) AND ESTIMATING BUSINESS INCOME BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE, THE A.O. ALSO MADE THESE THREE ADDITIONS OF RS. 11,844/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST AND CHARGES, RS. 13 4,703/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FDR AND RS. 10,047/ - ON ACCOUNT 2 OF FIGURES OF CREDIT IN P/L ACCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) BUT LATER ON AFTER LOSS OF BOOKS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) AS NOTED BY HIM IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED BUT HE DID NOT ALLOW WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL AND MADE ENHANCEMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE LOST IN COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. MAY BE UPHELD BUT THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY CIT (A) SHOULD BE DELETED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) THAT THE BOOKS WERE LOST WHEN THE SAME WERE BEING TAKEN TO THE PLACE OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PREPARATION OF APPEAL. COPY OF FIR IS ALSO FILED BEFORE CIT (A). WE FEEL THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO BRING NECESSARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENT IONS AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AND ALSO AGAINST THE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSED BY CIT (A). HENCE, WE FEEL THAT UNDER THESE PECULIAR FACTS, IT IS FIT AND PROPER TO UPHOLD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. BUT TO DELETE THE ENHANCEMENT OF RS. 35 LACS MAD E BY CIT (A) BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS, BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE AND IT WAS MADE BY THE A.O. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 0 /07/2015 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