Shraddha Constructiuon Company, JANJGIR CHAMPA V. Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax Cir.2(1), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 91/BIL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0544 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H M MAHARANA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 73/BLPR/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 0 8 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE - 2(1), BILASPUR VS. M/S. SHRADHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATION ROAD, SAKTI, JANJGIR - CHAMPA (CG) PAN : AATFS 3804 P ./ ITA NO.91/BLPR/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 0 8 M/S. SHRADHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SAKTI, JANJGIR - CHAMPA (CG) PAN : AATFS 3804 P VS. DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE - 2(1), BILASPUR / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI H.M. MAHARANA (JCIT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 / 10 /2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 / 10 /201 5 / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) , BILASPUR (CG) DATED 02 . 0 2 .201 0, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 . ITA NO. 73 & 91/BPR 2012 (CROSS APPEALS) ASSESSEE - SHRADHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AY: 200 7 - 0 8 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THESE CROSS APPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM CONTRACT WORK. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.8,94,48,832/ - THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE NET PROFIT OF RS.14,48,330/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE NET PROFIT RATE TO 5%. BOTH THE PARTIES, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH REGARD TO REDUCTION IN THE NET P ROFIT RATE WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 4. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS SERVED BY REGISTERED POST AND COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO PROCEED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LATE BY 30 DAYS. THE DEFECT MEMO WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE; HOWEVER, NO CONDONATION PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE DATE OF HEARING ALSO NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTED. 6. SO FAR AS THE REVENUES APPEAL IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ONLY DISPUTE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO ITA NO. 73 & 91/BPR 2012 (CROSS APPEALS) ASSESSEE - SHRADHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AY: 200 7 - 0 8 3 HAVE SUSTAINED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% WHICH IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AS WELL AS 142(1) . THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMIT TED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ENTIRELY AGREE WITH LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE THAT ON THE FACTS THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE, THOUGH SEVERAL NOTICES WERE ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, THER EFORE, UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8. SO FAR AS THE REDUCTION IN THE NET PROFIT RATE IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THE FINDING THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 4.92%, BEFORE INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS , HE APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% AS AGAINST 8% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 18 4(5), BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APP EAR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RIGHTLY COMPLETED U/S 144. ITA NO. 73 & 91/BPR 2012 (CROSS APPEALS) ASSESSEE - SHRADHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AY: 200 7 - 0 8 4 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSID ERING THE HISTORY OF PRECEDING YEAR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN THE LOWER NET PROFIT RATE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5%. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 0 9 T H OCTOBER, 2015 AT RAIPUR . SD/ - SD/ - (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE - PRESIDENT RAIPUR ; DATED 0 9 / 1 0 /201 5 BIJU T., PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, RAIPUR