Nand Kishor Prasad, Chandauli V. ACIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

ITA 94/VNS/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0149 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Revised return
• Section: 144; 154; 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT ‘SMC’ BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.94/VNS/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nand Kishor Prasad, Ward No. 8, Kidwai Nagar, Ganga Prasad Marg, Chandauli PAN-BTDPP9499K vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Varanasi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 05.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 03.08.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.08.2018 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpires from the record that nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee since beginning despite the repeated notices were issued to the assessee by RPAD as well as email to the email ID given in the Form No. 36. Accordingly, the Bench proposes to hear and dispose of this appeal, ex parte. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “i. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,67,120/- without appreciating the facts that the addition was made on estimation basis. ii. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in ignoring the facts estimation of 8% of profit on contract business is without any basis and also on higher side as the books of accounts were subject to Audit. The addition made being unjustified, illegal may kindly be deleted. ITA No.94/VNS/2020 Nand Kishor Prasad 2 iii. The appellant craves leave to add or to modify the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Civil Contractor. The assessee filed his return of income on 5 th January, 2016 declaring total income of Rs. 12,84,970/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the expenses claimed in the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) as well as under section 142(1) requiring the assessee to submit the necessary details for verification and examination of the claim of expenses. Neither any response was filed by the assessee to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer nor anybody appeared before the Assessing Officer to participate in the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer propose to frame the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act by issuing the show cause notice dated 12.11.2017. Despite repeated notices and show cause notice for framing the assessment under section 144, nobody appeared before the Assessing Officer nor any details or books of accounts were produced for verification. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment on the basis of best judgment by adopting the net profit @ 8%. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the CIT(A), but could not succeed. 4. I have gone through the impugned order of the CIT(A) and heard the learned DR who has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The CIT(A) after condoning the delay in filing the appeal has decided the appeal on merits in para 4 to 6 as under:- “4. The facts of the case are that appellant is a civil contractor. During the year under consideration net profit from business at Rs. 14,34,976/- on total contract receipt of Rs. 4,69,01,127/- has been shown and after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Chapter-VIA return of income was filed at Rs. 12,84,790/-. The A.O. allowed enough opportunity to the assessee to produce books of accounts and vouchers in which it has failed. Left to the no alternative, the A.O. rejected the books of accounts, and determined the profit from contract business @8% of total contractual receipt, which came to Rs. ITA No.94/VNS/2020 Nand Kishor Prasad 3 37,52,090/-. Accordingly, the A.O. made an addition of Rs. 24,67,120/- to the income of the appellant. 5. In the meantime, the A.O. has passed an order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act revising the assessed income of the appellant at Rs. 39,20,090/-. The reason for order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act passed by the A.O. was that the A.O. has while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), referred to above has forgot to take into consideration the revised return filed by the appellant on 06.01.2016. In the original return, the remuneration and interest received from partnership firm M/s Nand and Sons (in which the appellant is a partner with 40% share) amounting to Rs. 1,68,000/- has not been included. This income has been included in the revised return filed on 06.01.2016. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was requested to produce books of accounts and vouchers to examine its claim that A.O. was not right in rejecting the books of accounts and adopting the net profit rate of 8%. During the course of appellate proceedings also, books of accounts and vouchers were not produced. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant that estimation of income by the A.O. is excessive, arbitrary and unjustified is not accepted. In view of the above, the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 24,67,120/- to the income of the appellant is sustained.” 5. It is clear that even during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce books of accounts and vouchers for examination of its claim that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and adopting the net profit at 8%. However, the assessee has not produced the books of accounts or vouchers in support of its claim. 6. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee has not produced any record in support of its claim. The assessee has also not brought on record any material or comparable prevailing net profit in the same trade to challenge the adoption of net profit of 8% by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the assessee deserves dismissal being without any substance or merits. 7. It is further noted that the present appeal has been filed on 12 th May, 2020 against the impugned order dated 08.08.2018 therefore, there is a delay of more ITA No.94/VNS/2020 Nand Kishor Prasad 4 than one and half year in filing the present appeal. The assessee has not explained the cause of delay in filing the present appeal nor any application for condonation of delay is filed. Accordingly, the present appeal is otherwise not maintainable being barred by limitation. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 03.08.2022 at Allahabad, U.P. in accordance with Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/08/2022 Varanasi/Allahabad Sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Nand Kishor Prasad 2. Respondent- ACIT, Circle-3, Varanasi 3. CIT(A),Varanasi 4. CIT 5. DR By order Sr. P.S.