DCIT Cir.-1(1),, Pune v. Jog engineering Ltd., Pune

ITA 1007/PUN/2004 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 100724514 RSA 2004
Assessee PAN AAACV9251H
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1007/PUN/2004
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant DCIT Cir.-1(1),, Pune
Respondent Jog engineering Ltd., Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 08-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 08-11-2011
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 21-06-2004
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1007 AND 1528/PN/2004 A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 DY. CIT CIR. 1(1) PUNE APPELLANT VS. JOG ENGINEERING LTD. JOG CENTRE WAKDEWADI PUNE-411 003. PAN AAACV 9251 H RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 08-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-11-2011 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM BOTH THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE RAISING COMMON ISSUE. SO THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED O FF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THESE APP EALS RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SANPADA AND PALM BEACH PROJEC TS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND HAS UNDERTAKEN LARGE PROJECTS RELATING TO ROADS BRIDGE S HOUSING COLONIES SOFTWARE PARKS ETC. MOST OF THE P ROJECTS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BELONG TO GOVERNMENT AGENC IES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE LOSS INCURR ED BY THE 2 ITA NO.1007 AND 1528/PN/2004 JOG ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 ASSESSEE FROM THE PROJECTS SANPADA HOUSING AND PALM BEACH PROJECTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUB MISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AFTER CON SIDERING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS BEEN CHALLENGED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE B EFORE US. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT RECORDS OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS SUCH FOR BO TH THE PROJECTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY INVESTIGATION ARRIVED AT A DRASTIC CONCLUSION ON TH E BASIS OF FLIMSY ARGUMENTS OF NON-PRODUCTION OF RECORDS AT TH E END OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE OVERALL POSITION W AS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND IT HAD TO BE SEEN THAT THE SAME SET OF ACCOUNTING PRACTICES ARE ON RECORD WHICH HAV E BEEN RESULTED IN PROFITS IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME P OSITION OF ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S WELL AS CIT(A) FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIATED THE BASIS TAKEN FOR AVERAGING OU T OF THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE OF OTHER PROJECTS AND THEN ONLY A PPLY THEM TO THE PROJECTS ON WHICH HE DOUBTED THE COMPUT ATION OF LOSSES. THERE IS NEITHER ANY STATISTICAL BASIS NOR ANY QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE TAKING SUCH A STAND IN A CASE WHICH HAS A LONG HIST ORY BEFORE HIM OF REGULAR ASSESSMENTS AND WHERE THE REC ORDS CALLED FOR BY HIM WERE CERTAINLY NOT THE REGULAR AC COUNTING RECORDS BUT SITE RECORDS OF EARLIER YEARS OF PROJEC TS WHICH HAD EITHER BEEN COMPLETED OR WHICH WERE ON THE VERG E OF COMPLETION. THE RECORDS HAVE TRANSITORY VALUE AND IT WAS REASONABLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE NOT ABLE TO PRODU CE THEM WITHIN SUCH A SHORT SPAN OF TIME AT THE END OF ASSE SSMENT 3 ITA NO.1007 AND 1528/PN/2004 JOG ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 SPROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE RECORD S DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO BEFORE THE C IT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE RECORDS ARE R EGULARLY PREPARED AND ARE VERIFIABLE WITH THE HELP OF THE BI LLS SO PREPARED AND OTHER ACCOUNTING RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. 4. CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE ASPECTS WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF SANPADA AND PALM BEACH PROJECTS. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN ON 29 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 29 TH NOVEMBER 2011. ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT I PUNE 4. CIT(A)- I PUNE 5. THE D.R ITAT PUNE BENCH PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES PUNE.