Sandford Builders Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 86/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2270 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM IRS JCIT MA
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !' , # $! % BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P.NO. 85/MDS/2014 (IN ITA NO.1473(MDS)/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. SANFORD PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., TIMES PARTNER, NO.58, PERAMBUR BARRACKS ROAD, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600 007. PAN AALCS7202G (PETITIONER) VS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD IV(1), CHENNAI. (RESPONDENT) AND M.P.NO. 86/MDS/2014 (IN ITA NO.1474(MDS)/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. SANFORD BUILDERS PVT. LTD., TIMES PARTNER, NO.58, PERAMBUR BARRACKS ROAD, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600 007. PAN AALCS7196R (PETITIONER) VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD VI(1), CHENNAI. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONERS BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHA N, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BHASHYAM , IRS, JCIT - - MA 85 & 86/14 2 / DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND AUGUST, 2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND AUGUST, 2014 $& / O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARISE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 30.09.2013 IN ITA NOS. 1473/MDS/2013 AN D 1474/MDS/2013. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. 2. THE ABOVE SAID APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE REVENU E. WHEN THE APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, TH E TRIBUNAL PASSED EX PARTE, ORDERS. 3. NOW, IT IS THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONERS THAT T HE EX PARTE, ORDERS MAY BE RECALLED AND THE APPEALS MAY B E HEARD AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONE RS. 4. THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR. BOTH THE ASSESSEES WERE ENGAGED IN LABOUR CONTRACT. IN THE - - MA 85 & 86/14 3 ASSESSMENTS, THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT 10 PER CEN T OF THE GROSS COLLECTION. IN FIRST APPEALS, THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) MODIFIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE TO 2.24 PER CENT. THIS MODIFICATION WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN THE A PPEALS BEFORE US. 5. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ESTIMATE OF 10 PER C ENT OF THE GROSS COLLECTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y IS REASONABLE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEA LS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MODIFYING THE PROFIT RATE TO 2.24 PER CENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE WERE ALLOWED. 6. EVEN THOUGH, THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF EX PARTE, QUA, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE CASE AT LENGTH AND PASSED SPEAKING O RDERS IN BOTH THE APPEALS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT RECALLING OF THE ORDERS WILL BE ONLY AN EMPTY FORMALITY TO TE CHNICALLY COMPLY WITH THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONERS. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO RECALL THE EX PARTE, ORDERS AS IT WILL NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSES. - - MA 85 & 86/14 4 7. IN RESULT, THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS AR E DISMISSED. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND OF AUGUST, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . . . (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# /VICE-PRESIDENT $ /CHENNAI, %& /DATED, THE 22 ND AUGUST, 2014. MPO* ()*+!, /COPY TO: 1. !+- /APPELLANT 2. ).- /RESPONDENT 3. /0!+ /CIT(A) 4. / /CIT 5. 12)34 /DR 6. 256+ /GF.