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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITANo.18 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Gurinder Pal Singh .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. ***** HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal filed under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is arising out of an order dated 28.04.2011passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “theTribunal”) pertaining to the year 2007-08. The Revenue has claimedthe following question of law: “ i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in allowing anadoption of Net Profit rate of 7% as ruled by the CIT(A) incontrast to the Net profit rate of 12% adopted by theassessing officer, without appreciating the fact that theassessee is not maintaining books of accounts withrelevant bills/vouchers; ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of theHon'ble ITAT was right in law to have upheld the net profitrate applied in the earlier year in the assessee's casewithout appreciating the fact that the principle of resjudicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings eachyear being a separate year; iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding theorder of the CIT(A) without appreciating the speakingorder of the Assessing Officer wherein he had highlightedthe specific facts / discrepancies of the Assessment Year 2007-08 in contrast to the earlier years, which made himadopt the net profit rate of 12%. Hence, the order of theITAT is arbitrary and perverse.” Learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by theRevenue for the reason that net profit rate of 8% was applied in thecase of assessee in the year 2005-06 and 2006-07, therefore, in thepresent assessment year, the Tribunal found no reason to interferewith the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals).The Tribunal further clarified that this order will not operate asprecedent if the assessing officer is in a position to bring sufficientmaterials on record warranting adoption of higher percentage of netprofit or higher amount of disallowance of expenses. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and find nomerit in the appeal. As a matter of fact, for the assessment year2005-06 and 2006-07, this Court has dismissed the revenue's appealbearing ITS Nos.260 and 261 of 2011 on 13.09.2011. A perusal of theorder of this Court shows that in the year 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04and 2004-05, the net profit rate of 7% was applied. Though for theyears in question, 8% of net profit rate was applied. What should be the net profit rate is question of fact ineach case. The Tribunal has applied net profit rate of 8% in view ofsuch rate applied in earlier years. Therefore, we do not find that anysubstantial question of law arises for consideration in the presentappeal. Dismissed. (Hemant Gupta)Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge