ITO, Rohtak v. Garima Ghakker,, Rohtak

ITA 3463/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 346320114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AJPPG5923N
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3463/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Rohtak
Respondent Garima Ghakker,, Rohtak
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 31-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 31-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 31-01-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 15-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 3463/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 ROHTAK. VS. GARIMA GHAKKER PROP. M/S. HAPPY TRADERS R/O 9/32 CHAWLA COLONY ROHTAK. AJPPG5923N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.K. GUPTA CIT/DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 4 TH MAY 2010 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006- 07. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING NO ONE HAS COME ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL E X PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 3463/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 2 2. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS DISPOSED OFF 8 APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY A COMMON ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN. WE HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. GEETANJALI V IDE OUR ORDER DATED 27.1.2011. SMT. GEETANJALI IS ONE OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND FACTS OF HER CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONTRAC T RECEIPT OF ` 29 40 000/- EQUIVALENT TO SMT. GEETANJALI. SHE HAS ALSO FILED THE RETURN ON 24 TH JULY 2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 2 36 160/- WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO SMT. GEETANJALI. OUR ORDER IN THE CA SE OF SMT. GEETANJALI READ AS UNDER: - THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 4 TH MAY 2010 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07. THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RUL E 8 OF ITAT RULES. THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRI EF THE GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE AT 8% ON THE G ROSS RECEIPT AND THEREBY ALLOWING RELIEF TO HER. 2. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPE AL EX PARTY QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HA S FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 24 TH JULY 2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 2 36 160/-. TH E AO HAS OBSERVED THAT 128 NUMBER OF PERSONS FROM ROHTAK ALL EGED TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN CONTRACT WORK FOR PACL INDIA LTD. AMOUNT ING TO ` 3 64 74 150/- IN THIS YEAR. 64 ASSESSES WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE AO IN HIS WARD WHO HAVE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE FIRST TIME AND CLAIMED THE REFU ND. THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN RE SPECT OF THESE ASSESSES ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM PACL NEW DELHI. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT PACL HAS BEEN ASSESSED SUBSTANTIVELY ON SUCH PAYMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED AS A SUB CONTRACTOR FOR PACL INDIA AND RECEIVED PAYMENT OF ` 29 40 000/-. THE AO MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT M/S. PACL INDIA LTD. HAS B EEN ASSESSED ITA NO. 3463/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 3 SUBSTANTIVELY ON THIS AMOUNT AND THIS WAS TO BE ASS ESSED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BUT MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 20 40 000/- IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 4. LD. CIT (A) HAS DISPOSED OFF APPEALS OF 8 INDIV IDUALS. HE MADE A REFERENCE TO SIMILAR APPEALS DECIDED BY HIM. THE IT AT HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 225 230 231/D/2010 IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAMLESH SHRI LUXMI CHAND AND SHRI VIKRAM. HE OBSER VED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT BENEFICIARY OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT. AT THE MOST SHE HAS CLAIMED INCOME FOR GIVING SUCH TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S. SUCH OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASES OF OTHER A SSESSEES. ON THAT VERY PRINCIPLE HE RESTRICTED THE COMPUTATION OF ASSESSEE S INCOME AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT WHICH A CONTRACTOR WOULD HAVE OTHERWI SE EARNED FROM THE CONTRACT RECEIPT. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MODIFIED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE HELP OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. ON DUE CONSIDERATI ON OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN IT BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT M/S. PACL INDIA LTD. HAS ACTUALLY PAID A SUM OF ` 2 9 40 000/- TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN RETAINED BY HER WITHOUT DOING ANY WO RK. EITHER SHE HAD CARRIED OUT THE WORK OR SHE HAD GAVE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY. IN BOTH THE SITUATION THE ULTIMATE BENEFIT IN THE SHAPE OF INCO ME COULD NOT BE MORE THAN 8% TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHT LY RESTRICTED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT . THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US WOULD NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF THE RE VENUE IN THE CASE OF M/S. PACL INDIA LTD. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.1.2011. 3. THE ASSTT. ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE VERBATIM SAME IN BOTH THE CASES. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION EVE N IN THE RETURNED INCOME VIS A VIS ASSESSED INCOME. RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 3467/DEL/10 THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.1.2011. SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31.1.2011 VEENA ITA NO. 3463/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT