ITO, Ward 3(2), Chandigarh V. M/s California Design & Construction, Chandigarh

MA 118/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6159 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS. 117 & 118/CHD/2009 (IN ITA NO. 433 & 434/CHD/2008) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 & 2002-03 THE ITO, VS. MS. CALIFORNIA DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION WARD-3(2), INC INDIA, SCO NO.8 CHANDIGARH SECTOR 20-C, CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AACCC 6182 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.R. SHARMA ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE MISC. PETITIONS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 & 20 02-03 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 433 & 434 /CHD/2008 DATED 27.11.2008 2. THE APPLICANT VIDE THIS APPLICATION HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ESTIMATION OF PR OFIT RATE TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE YEAR AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS OR DER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE DR HAD AGREED TO THE DETERMINATION OF PROFIT RA TE AT LOWER RATE OF 5%. HOWEVER, AS PER THE COMMUNICATION OF CIT (ITAT) CHA NDIGARH, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. DR HAD CLARIFIED THAT HE H AD NOT AGREED TO 2 APPLICATION OF LOWER RATE OF 5% OR 5.5% AS AGAINST THE RATE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.1 1.2008, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AS PER THE OBSERVATION OF TH E BENCH VIDE PARA 2 OF THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND NOT ON THE CONCESSION G IVEN BY THE AR OR THE DR. HOWEVER, A REFERENCE W AS MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE ORDER TO THE CONCESSION AG REED UPON BY BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESE NT MISC. APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME AR E DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATION MOVED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3