ACIT, Faridabad v. Smt. Renu Mukherjee, Prop., Faridabad

ITA 2111/DEL/2011 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 211120114 RSA 2011
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2111/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Faridabad
Respondent Smt. Renu Mukherjee, Prop., Faridabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 01-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-12-2011
Next Hearing Date 01-12-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 29-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2111/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ACIT CIRCLE-1 VS. SMT. RENU MUKHERJEE PROP. CIRCLE-1 BLOCK-I-B M/S. B.G.M. ENGINEERS CGO COMPLEX 406 SECTOR-14 FARIDABAD NH-IV FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAU SHIK SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA FCA ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M. PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M. PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M. PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FARIDABAD DATED 27.1.2011 RE LEVANT TO ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05. THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE HAS TAKEN 14 GR OUNDS WHEREAS GROUND NO. 14 IS GENERAL WHICH DOES NOT REQUIR E ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION TO BE MADE IN OTHER GROUNDS DISPUTE RE LATES TO MANNER OF ADDITION AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE AO HAS RE JECTED THE BOOK RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE DISALLOWANCES UNDER VARIOU S HEADS. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS HELD THAT ONCE BOOK RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED THEN ADDITIONS UNDER VARIOUS H EADS ARE ITA NO. 2111/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 2 NOT TO BE MADE AND SIMPLY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO B E ESTIMATED BY ADOPTING A SUITABLE GROSS PROFIT RATE. IN THIS WAY LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED ALL THOSE ADDITI ONS AND DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ADOPTIN G 8% GP RATE. THE REVENUE HAS PLEADED IN THE GROUND 1 TO 12 ABOUT EACH ITEM OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY LD. CIT(A ). 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITT ED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE ORDER OF ITAT PASSED IN ITA NO. 3211 TO 3214/D/07 DA TED 29 TH AUGUST 2008 FOR THE ASSTT. YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 WHERE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR THOUGH AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONS ARE DIFFERENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE SAID OR DER OF DELHI F BENCH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSTT . YEAR 1999-2000 IN ITA NO. 2407/D/2011 DATED 15 TH JULY 2011 IN WHICH FACTS WERE ALMOST SIMILAR AND ISSUES ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. BY PLA CING PHOTOCOPIES OF THESE ORDERS LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE EARLIER DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI SHOULD BE FOLLOWED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL ASPECT BUT SHE SUBMITTED THAT SH E RELIES UPON THE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ITA NO. 2111/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 3 ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS IDE NTICAL AND FACTS ARE SIMILAR WITH VARIATION IN AMOUNTS OF ADDITI ON OTHER THAN GP ADDITION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED BY THE OTHER SIDE AND IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 THE TRIBUNAL D REW ITS CONCLUSION IN PARA 3 OF ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 2407/D/2 011 DATED 15 TH JULY 2011 AS UNDER :- ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.10.1999 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF `. 2 74 610/-. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 148. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 REPRODUCED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON PAGE NOS. 3 & 4 OF THE ORDER ARE SIMILAR ON SUBSTANTIAL POINTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A REFERENCE THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 A TAX EVASION PETITION LEVELING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PETITION. RECORDS WERE VERIFIED AND INFORMATIONS WERE GATHERED WHICH ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HARBOUR A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED T AX. THEREFORE HE REOPENED THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 6.50% IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT YEAR FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR AS WELL AS OF ITAT . HOWEVER HE UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 8% TO THE TOTAL TURN OVER. THIS RATE OF GROSS PROFIT APPLIED IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS HIGHER THAN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 COUPLED WITH THE STAND OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT PERSPECTIVE . HIS ORDER DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THEREFORE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2111/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 4 4. SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IDEN TICAL AND LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW AS TAKEN IN EARLIER YEAR S WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY ITAT THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DEC ISIONS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1.12.2011. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1.12.2011 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT