Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hisar v. M/S Vishwanath, Contractor Safidon, Jind

ITA 711 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 711 of 2009Date of decision 5 .2.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar...Appellant Versus M/s Vishwanath, Contractor Safidon, Jind ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges order dated 25.5.2009 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh in ITANo. 678/CHD/2008 and in CO No.31/CHD/2008 in respect of theassessment year 2004-05. The Revenue has claimed that various questionsof law would arise for consideration of this Court. However, we find thatthere are pure findings of fact. The Tribunal has noticed that the books ofthe assessee were found to be ingenuine and the said fact was admitted.Accordingly, the Revenue was to calculate/ estimate the net income underthe circumstances. The CIT(A) has cited comparable cases on identical factlike that of Shri Subhash Kundu, Contractor wherein a rate of 8% has beenapplied on total payments and has decided the matter by directing that netprofit of 8% on the total additions be applied. The Revenue had argued theimposition of 30% to 40% which was found practically impossible. TheTribunal further noticed that even for the assessment year 2006-07, vide ITA 711 of 2009 order dated 19.5.2008, the Assessing Officer was directed to apply net profitrate of 8% on the gross receipts. The decision in the case of Jora Singh wasalso cited to support the order of the CIT(A) where rate of 8% on totalpayments was applied. Accordingly, we do not find any legal infirmity inthe order of the Tribunal affirming the view taken by the CIT(A). Noquestion of law much less a substantive question of law would arise fordetermination of this Court warranting admission of the appeal.Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge 5.2.2010okg (Jitendra Chauhan)Judge