Mohan Kumar Senapati, Cuttack V. ACIT, Cuttack

ITA 94/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 9422114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: NATABAR PANDA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 94 / CTK ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI S .V. MEHROTRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) , AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 94 / CTK / 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 20 10 MOHAN KUMAR SENAPATI, ....................... ... ........... .. .APP ELL ANT P.O. NIALI, CUTTACK [PAN : A GVPS 3233 N ] - VS. - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , .... . RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 2(1), CUTTACK APPEARANCES BY: SHRI NATABAR PANDA , A .R. , FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI S.C. MOHANTY , D.R, FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 1 4 , 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 16 , 201 4 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , CUTTACK IN APPEAL NO. 0298 / 1 1 - 1 2 DATED 2 6 . 11 .20 12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . 2 . SHRI NATABAR PANDA , A DVOCATE , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI S.C. MOHANTY , D.R, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 94 / CTK ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 2 OF 3 OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REJE CTED AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ESTIMATED AT 10% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS NET OF DEPRECIATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT HAD REDUCED THE ESTIMATED NET PROFIT T O 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS NET OF DEPRECIATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED NET PROFIT TO 6.5%. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO COMPARATIVE CASE HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADOPTING AT 10% AND THE DECISION S OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WERE ADOPTING NET PROFIT OF 6%. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOK RESULTS MAY BE ACCEPTED. 4 . IN REPLY, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE OF ESTIMATED PROFI T VARYING BETWEEN 6 TO 8%. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD . 5 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGE THE FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF AC COUNT. NOW COMING TO THE ESTIMATION OF THE NET PROFIT N E T OF DEPRECIATION, THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN ESTIMATING THE SAME AT 6% TO 8% ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE S TURNOVER IS MORE THAN RS.7 CRORES. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 THE ASSESSEE HAS TURNOVER OF NEARLY RS.12 CRORES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NEARLY RS.75 LAKHS AS HIS NET PROFIT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERI NG THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AS ALSO THE APPROXIMATE NET PROFIT DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE NET OF DEPRECIATION IS ESTIMATED AT 7%. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE NET PROFIT AT 7%. I.T.A. NO. 94 / CTK ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 3 OF 3 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH OCTOBER , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - S .V. MEHROTRA GEORGE MATHAN ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 16 TH D AY OF OCTO BER , 201 4 COPIES TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK B ENCH, CUTTACK LAHA/SR. P.S.