Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shri Nandlala Jaswani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURECHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR—~~~Y^o CcJc(lncome Tax App^QNo. ^X^QQ^[ZoK]Appellant^ssistant Commissioner ofIncome-Tax, Circle1/' (1),Raipur.^VERSUSRespondent :^Shri. Nandlala Jaswani,Proprietor, M/s. MacdumPi^ M^WOM^a^-^^,^iia'^£^r>-^!^^ " ^^ ^.^^—^^Bhatapara, District:9M.........^.I.W.^—Raipu^C'GF Income Tax apoeal u/s 260 A of Income Tay Act 1961 ^ '^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURDIVISION BENCH CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J Tax Case flncome Tax Appeall No. 38 of 2011 Appellant : Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax VERSUS Respondent Shri Nandlala Jaswani Income Taxappeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act. 1961 Appearance:Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the Appellant.Shri SR Rao, counsel for the Respondent. JUDGEMENT(05thJuly,2013) 1. This is an appeal under section 260Aofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (theAct) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (theTribunal) dated 15.02.2007 allowing the appeal of Shri Nandlala Jaswani(the Assessee) for the assessment year 2001-2002. THE FACTS 2. The Assessee is a contractor.His turn-over for the assessment year2001-02 was ^6.66 crores. He filed his return showing the income @7%.However, the Assessing Officer (the AO) did not accept the same by hisorderdated 31.03.2004 and assessed the income @8%. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A). It was dismissedon 07.11.2006. 4. The Assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal.It was allowedon 15.02.2007.The Tribunal held the income of the Assessee to be@7%. Hence, the present appeal by the Income Tax Department. THEDECISION 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. The turn-over of the Assessee was more than the amount mentionedunder section 44-AD of the Act and as such it was not applicable.TheTribunal by its order dated has accepted the rate of income given by theAssessee @7% on the ground that the last year's accepted income %. This is a finding of fact. 7.There is no illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal.Theappeal has no merit. It is dismissed. Sd/-Pritinker DiwakerJudge Sd/-Chief Jusdce