Mohan Bal Kasar, Ratnagiri V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 984/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 98424514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 984/PN/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) MOHAN BAL KASAR, M/S. KASAR CONSTRUCTION, 28, PUSHPAKRAJ COMPLEX, RATNAGIRI 415605 .. APPELLANT PAN NO.AMZPK0096M VS. DY.CIT, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, RATNAGIRI .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 18-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-09-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 30-01-2014 OF THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLE NGED THE PART RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.62 ,18,243/- MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME ON 11-10-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,46,190/-. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON VARIOUS DATES INCLUDING ISSUE OF SUMMONS U/S.131(1) AND INITIATION OF 2 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(B), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. THE AO, THEREFOR E, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.11,46,185/- ON TOTAL GROSS CONTRACT RE CEIPT OF RS.7,59,20,907/- WHICH COMES TO 1.50% ONLY. THE AO COMPARED THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES IN THE S AME AREA ENGAGED IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS WHO HAVE DECLARED NET PROF IT RANGING FROM 6.60% TO 7.87%. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BOTHER TO APP EAR BEFORE HIM, THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 8% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT AND DETERMINED THE INCOME AT RS.67,03,433/- FROM CONTRA CT BUSINESS AS AGAINST RS.11,45,185/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. S IMILARLY, THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,61,000/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T. A CT ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN ICICI BANK LTD. AT CH IPLUN. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION OF RS.1 LAKH U/S.80C OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BUT FI LED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW THE AO IS INCORRECT, THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF P ROFIT FROM CONTRACT RECEIPT OF 8%. HE ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.5 ,61,000/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO VARIOUS DIFFICULTIES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE T HE AO. HE ALSO COULD NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY PROPERLY BEFORE THE CI T(A). THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BOTHER TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. EVEN HE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SUMMON ISSUED U/S.131 NOR DID HE RESPOND TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.271 (1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. EVEN BEF ORE CIT(A) ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BUT FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISS ION. THIS INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY CASUAL IN HIS APPROACH AN D DOES NOT BOTHER FOR THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITT ED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I T IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE GIVEN REPEATED OPPORTUNI TIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEVER BOTHERED TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. NOT A SINGLE ADJOURNMENT LETTER HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO. IT APPEARS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY CASUAL IN HIS APPROACH AND DID NOT BOTHER FOR THE I NCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. EVEN BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE DID N OT APPEAR BUT FILED SOME WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH WERE UNSUBSTANTIATED. THIS TYPE OF UTTER DISREGARD FOR THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS BY AN ASSE SSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN 4 LIGHTLY. APATHY TOWARDS JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CANNO T BE ENCOURAGED. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE LEVY COST OF RS.5,000/- (RUPEES FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOULD BE PAID TO THE I NCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RECEI PT OF THIS ORDER. AT THE SAME TIME, KEEPING IN MIND THE PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE, WE SET- ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECID E THE CASE AS PER FACT AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSME NT, THE AO IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW. WE H OLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-09-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER PUNE DATED: 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT, KOLHAPUR 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE