NAVRATTAN KUMAR ANAND vs. CIT PANCHKULA

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenges order dated 22.4.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. No. 983/CHD/2007, in respect of Assessment Year 2005-

The assessee-appellant was subjected to survey under Section 133A of the Act and his case was eventually selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order, dated 27.6.2007 (A-2), by making additions invoking profit at the rate of 8% for an amount of Rs. 21,12,719/-. The aforesaid order was upheld by the CIT(A), vide its order dated 3.10.2007 (A-4). The assessee-appellant then filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which has also upheld the view of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). The assessee-appellant is a government contractor who has been executing railway contract work. He declared his total income of Rs. 9,73,734/- in the return filed on 31.10.2005 along with the audited report, audited balance sheet and profit and loss account. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 3.3.2006. The survey team visited the business premises of the assessee- appellant and the premises were locked. The partner of the assessee-firm, who was contacted on the telephone intimated the officer concerned on 20.4.2005 that he would attend the office in the afternoon. He appeared with his counsel but no books of account/vouchers were produced. His statement was recorded wherein he stated that all books of account were destroyed in flood in the month of August 2004. He declared additional income of Rs. 5,00,000/- each for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, subject to no penal action. The Tribunal reproduced that portion of the assessment order in para 3. Accordingly, in the absence of books of account, net profit at the rate of 8% was applied on the contract receipt because the Assessing Officer was not satisfied about the correctness and completeness of the account.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee-appellant was asked for furnishing details of receipts and expenditure based on his bank statements. But the assessee-appellant expressed its inability. The Tribunal has noticed that the assessee through his counsel had admitted and accepted that the net profit on contract payment may be computed by applying the rate of 8% and FDR interest was ordered to be added separately. Similar is the situation for the assessment year 2004-05. 4. Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant by citing various provisions of the Act has made a valiant attempt to reopen the case before us and has insisted that additional pieces of evidence could be adduced.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that the instant appeal is absolutely without any merit. The assessee-appellant has conceded through his counsel for addition of profit at the rate of 8% on the income of Rs. 21,12,719/-. There is no permission given by any of the Appellate Court for adducing of additional evidence, which may adversely affect the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as affirmed by the two Courts. There is, thus, no substance in the plea of adducing of additional evidence. The findings are based on admission made by the assessee-appellant through its counsel. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 30, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3