Shri Ranjeet R Sawant, Satara v. CIT, Appeals II, Satara

ITA 1625/PUN/2008 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 162524514 RSA 2008
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1625/PUN/2008
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Shri Ranjeet R Sawant, Satara
Respondent CIT, Appeals II, Satara
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-07-2012
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 26-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1625 & 1626/PN/2008 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 & 2001-02) SHRI. RANJEET R. SAWANT ... APPELLANT SATARA PAN: NOT AVAILABLE V. I.T.O WARD - 2 SATARA RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. V.L. JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ALOK MISHRA DATE OF HEARING : 26/7/12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -7-12 ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR JM THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING T HE RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(A)- II PUNE FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02. AS THE ISSUES AS WELL AS FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE A .YS THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. SAVE THE FIGURE OF ASS ESSED INCOME THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VERBATIM IN BOTH TH E A.YS. WE ACCORDINGLY REPRODUCE GROUNDS IN THE A.Y. 2000-01 : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 340850/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE STATE MENT GIVEN BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS UNDER MISTAKEN BELI EF AND MISINTERPRETED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSED INCOME ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME HA S BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAI D HAS NOT BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE CAN NOT BE 80% PROFIT IN THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION. ITA . NOS.1625 & 1626//PN/2008 SHRI RANJEET R. SAWANT A.YS.2000-01 & 2001-02 PAGE OF 4 2 2. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CONTROVERSY ARE IN NARRO W COMPASS. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS IN HIS I NDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE AS M/S. RANJIT TRANSPORT. THERE WAS SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A CARRIED OUT ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ON 24 TH JULY 2001. IN THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY ACTION ASSESSEE OFFERED THE AD DITIONAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 AND 2002-03. IN COMPLIANCE WIT H HIS DECLARATIONS DURING THE SURVEY ACTION ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 32 618/- FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 AND RS. 3 85 585/ - FOR A.Y. 2001- 02. THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W .S 147 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE YEARS MAKING SOME ADDITIONS. IT APPEARS THAT D URING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY ACTION ASSESSEES STATEMENTS WAS RECORDED. IN THE SAID STATEMENT MORE PARTICULARLY IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 9 THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT HE IS CARRYING ON THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT OF TAAR (DAMPAR) FOR WHICH TRUCK NO. MH 11A 5472 IS USED. IT WAS STATED THAT MAXIMUM 40 TRIPS ARE EXECUTED IN A YEAR AND HE RECEIVED RS. 5000/- PER TRIP. HE HAS A CONTRACT WITH PWD SATARA. HE DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD TRANSPORT AS UND ER : 1) A.Y. 2000-01 .. RS. 2 00 000/- 2) A.Y. 2001-02 .. RS. 1 60 000/- 3. HE ALSO STATED THAT THERE ARE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF 20%. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE A.YS. DECLARING THE INCOME OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY ACTION FROM TRANS PORT BUSINESS BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE STAND THAT THE A DDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AC TION WAS MISPLACED. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE STAT EMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION WAS MISPLACED AND INCO ME DECLARED ON THE SAID STATEMENT MAY BE DISCARDED. THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD COU NSEL IS THAT AS THE ITA . NOS.1625 & 1626//PN/2008 SHRI RANJEET R. SAWANT A.YS.2000-01 & 2001-02 PAGE OF 4 3 ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT ACTIV ITY HENCE HIS INCOME MAY BE COMPUTED ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U/S. 44AE(2)(I) AS APPLICABLE FOR THE A.YS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02. HE REITERATED THE ARGUMENT WH ICH WAS ADVANCED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). HE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. GUJARAT GAS CO. LTD. VS. CIT 245 ITR 84 (GUJ.) 2. CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. 306 ITR 42 (DEL.) 3. CHICKAGO PNEUMATIC (I) LTD. VS. DY CIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (MUM) 4. PRADIP KUMAR HARALALKA 143 TTJ (MUM) 446 5. IMMERSON NETWORK VS. ACIT 122 TTJ (MUM) 67 6. CIT VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON 300 ITR 157 (MAD.) 7. PAUL MATHEWS & SONS VS. CIT 263 ITR 101 (KER.) 8. ACIT VS. SATYANARAYAN AGARWALA 91 TTJ (CAL) 481 WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R. 5. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INCOME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVE Y ACTION BUT DID NOT DECLARE SAME IN THE RETURN OF THE INCOME BUT THE A.O FRAMED THE ASS ESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRE SENT CASE THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY ACTION AND WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE A.YS. DECLARED THE INCOME OFF ERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT ARE FRAMED BASED ON THE RETURNS FILED BY HIM. 6. SO FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44AE (2) ARE CONCERNED IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE A.O. SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT BY ADOPTING THE MINIMUM HIRE CHARGES PER MONTH PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (I) TO SEC. 44AE (2) OF THE ACT. THE BASIC SCHEME OF SEC. 44AE IS THAT IT IS THE OVERRIDING P ROVISION AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS THE LOSS OR INCOME BELOW THE AMOUNTS PRO VIDED UNDER CLAUSE (I) TO SEC. 44AE(2) OF THE ACT THE MINIMUM INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE PER MONTH WILL BE ASSESSED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3500/- PER MONTH AS PER THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE A.YS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02. THE LANGUAGE OF SUB-SECTION (2 ) OF SEC. 44AE IS UNAMBIGUOUS WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYIN G OUT THE BUSINESS ITA . NOS.1625 & 1626//PN/2008 SHRI RANJEET R. SAWANT A.YS.2000-01 & 2001-02 PAGE OF 4 4 WITH THE HEAVY GOOD VEHICLES THEN THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OF RS. 3500/- FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF THE MONTH DURING WHICH THE HEAV Y GOOD VEHICLES ARE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WILL BE ASSES SED AS HIS INCOME OR IF THE ASSESSEE DECLARES THE HIGHER AMOUNT IN HIS RETURN O F INCOME THEN THE HIGHER AMOUNT THAN THE MINIMUM LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SAID CLA USE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISION FOR THE PRESUMPTIVE DETERMINATION OF THE INCOME ENVISAGED U/S. 44AE DOES NOT GIVE ANY BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT DETERMINES MINIMUM INCOME PER HEAVY VE HICLE PER MONTH BY PRESUMING THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN EARNED AFTER ALLOWING O F THE DEDUCTIONS U/S. 29 TO 43C INCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE. 7. WE HAVE ANXIOUSLY CONSIDERED ALL THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL BUT THOSE ARE NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE AS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DECLARED THE IN COME IN THE RETURNS FILED BY HIM. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE A.YS. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 27TH JU LY 2012 SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 27TH JULY 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT III PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)- II PUNE 4. THE D.R. B BENCH PUNE 5. GUARD FILE /-TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE