Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Chandigarh v. Gurinder Pal Singh

I.T.Appeal No.260 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.Appeal No.260 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh....AppellantVersusGurinder Pal Singh....RespondentANDI.T.Appeal No.261 of 2011Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh....AppellantVersusGurinder Pal Singh....Respondent Date of Order: 13.9.2011 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGHPresent:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant(s).HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing ITA No.260 of2011 pertaining to assessment year 2005-2006 and ITA No.261 of 2011pertaining to assessment year 2006-2007 against order dated 18.8.2010whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh has set aside theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and maintained theorder of the Assessing Officer levying net profit rate @ 7%. Earlier, Rajinder Singh-father of the assessee was carrying on the road construction work and after his death, present assessee has takenover the construction business of the Firm. It has been found by theTribunal that for the earlier years i.e 1996-1997 and 1998-1999, the netprofit at the rate of 8% was applied while framing assessment of the father I.T.Appeal No.260 of 2011 of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officerat the net profit rate of 7% is reasonable and that order of the Commissionerenhancing the net profit rate to 12% is not justified. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length,we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for theconsideration of this Court. It is question of fact keeping in viewcircumstances of each case as to whether net profit rate of 7% is to beapplied or enhanced to the rate of 12%. The Assessing Officer applied thenet profit rate as 7% and the said order has been affirmed by the learnedAppellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that thereis no evidence produced by the revenue to prove that the assessee has thehigher profit than the net profit rate of 7%. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Commissionershows that for the earlier years such as 2001-2002, 2002-03, 2003-04 and2004-05, net profit rate of 7% was applied. Since the net profit rate wasbeing applied in the previous years as 7%, there is no valid ground toenhance the net profit rate to 12%. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugnedorder warranting any interference by this Court. Accordingly, both theappeals are dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE