Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Iii Statue Circle C-Schemejaipur v. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary, Todarai Singh, District Tonk

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 17 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III Statue Circle C-SchemeJaipur ----Appellant Versus Shri Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary, Todarai Singh, District Tonk. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 231 / 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-3, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Shri Kanhiya Lal Choudhary, Near Bus Stand, Toda Raisingh, Dist.-Tonk, AY: 2010-11 ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav on behalf of Mr. Sameer Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment 11/09/2017 1. In both these appeals since identical questions of law andfacts are involved, they are decided by this common judgment. 2.By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department. 3.This court while admitting the appeals framed the followingquestion of law:- 1. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 17/ 2013 “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the casethe ITAT was justified in law in confirming the order ofCIT(A) by which net profit rate taken at 9% subject todepreciation despite of upholding the invoking ofprovisions of Section 145(3) of the Act? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the casethe Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the tradingadditions despite of upholding the provisions of Section145(3) of the Act?” 2. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 231/ 2016 “Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming theorder of CIT(A) by which new profit rate was taken at5% and 10% on sub-contract receipts and selfexecuted work respectively subject to depreciation andinterest payment to third parties despite rejection ofbooks u/s 145(3) of the Act. “ Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the tradingadditions despite of upholding the provisions of Section145(3) of the Act? ?” 4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of AO and contended that the view taken by the AO is just andproper and the CIT (A) and the Tribunal have committedserious error and therefore, the view taken by AO is requiredto be restored. 5. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out theobservations made by CIT (A) and Tribunal and contendedthat both the authorities have taken into consideration thenet profit of the earlier years and books of account and rightly come to the conclusion and the view taken by theauthorities is required to be confirmed. 6. In view of concurrent finding, the issue is answered in favour of assessee against the department. 7. Both the appeals are dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B.M.G./62-63