TASNEEM H. SAIFEE, MUMBAI v. ITO 17(1)-3, MUMBAI

ITA 589/MUM/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 58919914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AMBPS2011A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 589/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant TASNEEM H. SAIFEE, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 17(1)-3, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 20-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 20-01-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 25-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH BEFORE SHRI D.K.AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.589/MUM/2010 A.Y 2003-04 MRS. TASNEEM H. SAIFEE PROP. UNICOAT 153/155 MAZGAON DR. MACARENA ROAD MUMBAI 400 010 PAN: AMBPS 2011 A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17 (1) 3 MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAMEER DALAL. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. AMRITA MISRA. O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD AM: IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING REJECTION OF BOO KS AND ESTIMATION OF PROFITS. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS O F HANDLING AND LABOUR CHARGES AS WELL AS WAGES. A DETAILED CHART W AS ALSO FURNISHED. THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S.133[6] TO FEW PARTIES. SO ME OF THEM CONFIRMED THE CONTRACT AND SOME COMPLIED VERY LATE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE ALSO NOT VER IFIABLE AND THEREFORE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED 2 THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT OF 7.10% WHIC H WAS ULTIMATELY ESTIMATED AT 15%. 3. ON APPEAL THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 4. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD IN DETAIL. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD VALID REASON FOR REJECTION OF THE BOOKS BECAUSE EVE N SOME OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN BEEN REJECTED PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTI MATED JUDICIOUSLY. EVEN SEC.44AD PRESCRIBES PRESUMED NET PROFIT RATE O F 8% WHEN NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE PERSONS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET IF NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED AT 8%. THIS PROPOSAL WAS AGREED EVEN BY THE LD.COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO APPLY THE NET PROFIT RA TE OF 8%. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 28 TH JANUARY 2011. P/-* 3