Navrattan Kumar Anand v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 627 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 30, 2010 Navrattan Kumar Anand ..Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the assessee-appellant. 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported inthe Digest?the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenges order dated 22.4.2009, passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘theTribunal’), in I.T.A. No. 983/CHD/2007, in respect of Assessment Year 2005-06. 2.The assessee-appellant was subjected to survey under Section 133Aof the Act and his case was eventually selected for scrutiny. The AssessingOfficer passed the assessment order, dated 27.6.2007 (A-2), by makingadditions invoking profit at the rate of 8% for an amount of Rs. 21,12,719/-.The aforesaid order was upheld by the CIT(A), vide its order dated 3.10.2007(A-4). The assessee-appellant then filed an appeal before the Tribunal, whichhas also upheld the view of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). The assessee-appellant is a government contractor who has been executing railwaycontract work. He declared his total income of Rs. 9,73,734/- in the return filedon 31.10.2005 along with the audited report, audited balance sheet and profitand loss account. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on3.3.2006. The survey team visited the business premises of the assessee-appellant and the premises were locked. The partner of the assessee-firm, whowas contacted on the telephone intimated the officer concerned on 20.4.2005that he would attend the office in the afternoon. He appeared with his counselbut no books of account/vouchers were produced. His statement was recordedwherein he stated that all books of account were destroyed in flood in the monthof August 2004. He declared additional income of Rs. 5,00,000/- each for theassessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, subject to no penal action. The Tribunalreproduced that portion of the assessment order in para 3. Accordingly, in theabsence of books of account, net profit at the rate of 8% was applied on thecontract receipt because the Assessing Officer was not satisfied about thecorrectness and completeness of the account. 3.Before the CIT(A), the assessee-appellant was asked for furnishingdetails of receipts and expenditure based on his bank statements. But theassessee-appellant expressed its inability. The Tribunal has noticed that theassessee through his counsel had admitted and accepted that the net profit oncontract payment may be computed by applying the rate of 8% and FDR interestwas ordered to be added separately. Similar is the situation for the assessmentyear 2004-05. 4.Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant byciting various provisions of the Act has made a valiant attempt to reopen thecase before us and has insisted that additional pieces of evidence could be adduced. 5.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissionsmade by the learned counsel and are of the view that the instant appeal isabsolutely without any merit. The assessee-appellant has conceded through hiscounsel for addition of profit at the rate of 8% on the income of Rs. 21,12,719/-.There is no permission given by any of the Appellate Court for adducing ofadditional evidence, which may adversely affect the findings recorded by theAssessing Officer as affirmed by the two Courts. There is, thus, no substance inthe plea of adducing of additional evidence. The findings are based onadmission made by the assessee-appellant through its counsel. The appeal isaccordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR)JUDGE April 30, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE Pkapoor