Ita/278/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Jalandhar-Ii Jalandhar v. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAATCHANDIGARH ITA No.278 of 2013 (O&M)Date of decision: April 29, 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar II, Jalandhar .....-Appell Vs, Shri Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal,Prop: Rakesh Kumar Contractor,SCO 17-C, Ladowali Road,District Jalandhar, State Punjab. ...KeSpondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICK AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant.Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate with|Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate andMr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1.This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.278 and 279 of 2013 as thelearned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in both theappeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.278 of 2013. D ITA No.278 of 2013 has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against the order dated 12.06.2013, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AmritsarBench, Amritsar in ITA No.222 (ASR)/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10proposing to raise the following substantial question of law:- ‘Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the eyes of law Income ‘ax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissingthe appeal of the revenue without considering the fact that Hon'bleJurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Prabhat KumarContractor, Sirsa (TA No.293 of 2008 dated 14.11.2008) onidentical facts and in similar line of business has upheld the NP rateof 12%? 3.Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversyinvolved, as narrated in ITA No.278 of 2013 may be noticed. The assessee is agovernment contractor. He filed his return of income on 28.9.2009 declaring totalincome of|=a96,71,108/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act.The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee under Section 143(3) ofthe Act after rejecting the account books of the assessee under Section 145(3) ofthe Act working out net profit at the rate of 12% of the net receipts of=12,43,70,464/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed total income at=1,49,24,455/- as against the net total income of-96,71,107/- returned by theassessee thereby making an addition of =a52,53,348/-. Aggrieved by the order, theassessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].Vide order dated 11.2.2013, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appealby restricting the net profit rate to 10% as against 12% applied by the AssessingOfficer. Feeling aggrieved, both the revenue and the assessee filed appeals beforethe Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.6.2013, Annexure A.3 partlyallowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. TheTribunal sustained the addition of=a6 lacs only as against total addition made bythe Assessing Officer at=a52,53,348/- and upheld by the CIT(A) at =a27,65,939/-.Hence the present appeals by the revenue. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4 The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue had relied upon the order ITA No.278 of 2013 (O&M) 3 noticed in para 17.5 of its order. In view of our order of even date passed in ITANos.100 and 101 of 2013 wherein after setting aside the impugned order being nota speaking and reasoned one, the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal todecide the issue afresh, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.6.2013,Annexure A.3 in the present appeals and remit the matter to the Tribunal toadjudicate the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the partiesin accordance with law by passing a speaking well reasoned order. As a result,both the appeals stand allowed. April 29, 2014@8&@ (Ajay Kumar Mittal)sudge(Jaspal Singh)sudge