Cwp/27253/2016 Of Sanjay Kundu v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan Rohtak Haryana

Gurbax Singh2017.07.03 10:57 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AJ-CHANDIGARH. CWP No 27253 of 2016Date of decision: 15.05.2017 Shri Sanjay Kundu —___- Petitio VsS_ Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..... Responde CORAM: HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: |Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocatefor the petitioner.for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1.Prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India is tor quashing the impugned order dated30.03.2015 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax, Rohtak, (CIT) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (inShort “the Act’), rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner underSection 264 of the Act and thereby confirming the assessment orderdated 15.03.2013 (Annexure P-4). Direction has also been sought to theCIT, Rohtak, for reconsideration of the petition filed by the petitioner. D.A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner-assessee iS an individual based at Rohtak. He is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and is providing services mainly to the Governmentsector. He filed return of income tax for the assessment year 2010-11 on25.05.2010, declaring income atan1,74,500/-. The return was processedunder Section 143(1) of the Act on 15.03.2011. On 31.03.2012, thepetitioner revised return declaring income at)24.84,.627/-. The return ofthe petitioner was selected for scrutiny on 10.09.2012 and notice underSection 143(2) of the Act was issued. The petitioner appeared throughhis counsel. He was directed to supply books of account alongwithrelevant vouchers. The petitioner submitted audited balance sheet andledger accounts. The Assessing Officer directed the petitioner toproduce complete bills/vouchers of expenses and also to furnishaddresses to whom payment of these expenses had been made. TheAssessing Officer vide assessment order dated 15.03.2013 (AnnexureP-4) rejected the audited balance sheet and ledgers submitted by thepetitioner and made assessment under Section 145(3) of the Act,applying net profit rate of 12% at262,07,890/- against returned incomeof||1,74,500/-. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of|225,000/-.under Section 271A of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was notmaintaining complete books of account, the bills and the vouchers.Further, penalty ofan1,00,000/- under Section 271B of the Act wasimposed upon the petitioner on the ground that he had not filed auditedaccounts though the audited balance sheet was provided to theAssessing Officer and the same was rejected by him. The AssessingOfficer also imposed penalty of|an17,66,904/- under Section 271B ofthe Act. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner filed petition underSection 264 of the Act before the CIT|inter aliaon the ground that theAssessing Officer, passed the assessment order due to extraneous considerations; record of the case was not perused and that enquiry maybe made in the case as it was a case of no-voice before the AssessingOfficer.Videorderdated30.03.2015)(Annexure|theCommissioner of Income Tax rejected the petition filed by thepetitioner under Section 264 of the Act. According to the petitioner, hehad provided all the relevant documents to his counsel, butunfortunately he could not concentrate on his legal work because ofprolonged illness of his only son who later on died on 14.01.2015.Further, the petitioner was pre-occupied in the treatment of his cousinbrother-in-law residing with him at Rohtak and getting treatment ofcancer at PGIMS, Rohtak, who also died on 20.04.2016. Thus, thecounsel of the petitioner could not act diligently leading to the adverseassessment order and the revisional order. Hence, the instant petition bythe petitioner before this Court. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4Admittedly, the assessee filed original income tax returnon 25.05.2010 declaring income of21,74,500/- which was processedunder Section 143(1) of the Act. He filed revised return on 31.03.2012declaring income of44,.84,627/- under the head business andprofession. During the year under consideration the assessee had showngross receipts from the contract at=a5,17,32,000/- and declared netprofit ofy4,85,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice underSection 143(2) of the Act was issued. No one on behalf of the petitionerattended the proceedings. No reply was filed. Thereafter, variousOpportunities were provided from 05.11.2012 to 15.01.2013 but theassessee failed to produce the books of account and the relevantvouchers. On a perusal of the assessment order and the order passed by the (CIT) under Section 264 of the Act, we find that more thansufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain his caseof furnishing books of account and other relevant material. The assesseefailed to avail the opportunity provided by the Assessing Officer onSeveral occasions. Even during those instances where authorizedrepresentative of the assessee appeared, complete details were not filed.Accordingly, the profit rate of 12% to the gross receipts of the assesseewas held to be quite reasonable on the basis of the material availablebefore the Assessing Officer. Thus, the CIT finding no errer in the orderpassed by the Assessing Officer, rightly concurred with the view takenby the Assessing Officer and rejected the petition filed by the petitionerunder Section 264 of the Act. 5.Even before this Court, the petitioner-assessee wasprovided opportunity to demonstrate that the profit rate of 12% adoptedby the Assessing Officer was higher and unreasonable. The assesseehad filed the certificate of gross profit rate and net profit rate for theAssessment years 2010-11 to 2014-2015 (Annexure P.12) which readsthus:-_ $CA Arvind Krishan AssociatesChartered Accountants Certificate It is hereby certified that financial of M/s Sanjay Kundu Contractor r/oV.P.O. Bhali Anandpur, Distt Rohtak are as under:- For Arvind Krishan AssociatesChartered Accountants ~Stamp and Sign (M.No. 90184).(Prop.) Date:- 09.03.2017 Place:- RohtakOffice Near Soham Mandir, Green Road, Rohtak-124001 Ph: (QO)01262-250409 email: A perusal of the aforesaid Chart shows that there had been lot ofvariation in the profit rate of the assessee during these years andtherefore, in the absence of production of books of account by theassessee, no benefit can be derived by him by claiming profit rate asapplicable then. Moreover, the order passed by the (CIT) is dated30.03.2015. The present petition has been filed after one year and eightmonths. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to produceany material on record to substantiate his claim made in the petition.Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is herebydismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge |May 15, 2017(Harinder Singh Sidhu)Judge |Whether speaking/reasonedYesWhether reportableYes