COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S ANAND KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/303/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099387201218 September 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON,MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the controversy in the present case was covered against the Revenue by its own previous order dated 13.10.2011, passed in ITA No.272 of 2011, titled "The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak V/s Shri Parveen Kumar Mittal". By dismissing the appeal, the High Court implicitly upheld the ITAT's direction to adopt a net profit rate of 4% of gross receipts. The reasoning is based on the principle of precedent, where a prior decision on similar facts and legal issues binds subsequent decisions. The operative direction is the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, meaning the ITAT's order stands.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, has filed an appeal against an order dated 27.04.2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'A'. The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolves around the rate of gross profit to be applied. The Assessing Officer (AO) had adopted a net profit rate of 12% of gross receipts, while the ITAT directed the AO to adopt a rate of 4%. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision on this specific rate. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT's order is the subject of the present challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi, is justified in law in directing the AO to adopt a net profit rate of 4% of gross receipts instead of 12% adopted by the AO, by relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Parbhat Kumar Contr. of Sirsa in ITA No.293 of 2008? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the ITAT was not justified in reducing the net profit rate from 12% to 4% and that the AO's adoption of 12% was correct. The Revenue challenges the ITAT's reliance on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Parbhat Kumar Contr. of Sirsa (ITA No.293 of 2008) for this reduction.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No.303 of 2012

Decided on: 18.09.2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..... Appellant

VERSUS M/s Anand Kumar, Electrical Contractor ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Mr.Inderpreet Singh Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

******* RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The revenue challenges order dated 27.04.2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, with respect to the rate of 4% held to be sufficient by the Tribunal while calculating gross profit on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Hon'ble ITAT new Delhi is justified in law in directing the AO to adopt the net profit rate of 4% of gross receipts instead of 12% adopted by the AO by relying on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Parbhat Kumar Contr. of Sirsa in ITA No.293 of 2008?”

We have heard counsel for the parties and as the controversy in the present case is covered against the revenue by order dated 13.10.2011, passed in ITA No.272 of 2011 “The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak V/s Shri Parveen Kumar Mittal, dismiss the appeal.

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE 18.09.2013 [ DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON ] shamsher JUDGE

Singh Shemsher 2013.09.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →