Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kota v. Shri Parmanand

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 125 / 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota ----Appellant Versus Shri Parmanand, Prop. M/s. Parmanand Contractor, H.No. 19, Rangbari, Kota ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment 02/11/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partlyallowed the appeal of the assessee as well as department forstatistical purposes. 2.Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantialquestions of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justifiedin directing to apply net profit rate subject todepreciation and interest, in pursuance ofwhich the income from contractorshipbusiness of the assessee reduced to negativefigure, which is contrary to the BoardsCircular No.549 also when the CIT(A)directed to allow depreciation and interestsubject to income declared by the assessee? 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justifiedin not upholding the findings of the CIT(A)and restoring the issue of taxability ofinterest income from FDRs, NSCs specificallywhen the interest from the same has to betaxed “Income from other sources”? 3.The facts of the case are that assessee derives income fromexecution of contract and is also a dealer of petrol pumps. Theassessee’s income was assessed vide order u/s 143(3). During thecourse of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed thatassessee’s books had various defects, the assessee did notproduce complete books of accounts, expenses debited were notsupported by bills/vouchers, labour register, site wise details ofwork etc. were not maintained. Therefore, the books of accountsof the assessee were rejected u/s 145(3) and the AO applied NetProfit rate of 9.75% giving the benefit of depreciation. 3.1The assessee showed interest receipt of Rs.25,47,588/- inhis P & L claiming the same under the head “Income of business”.In A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 in the case of the assessee, suchincome was taxed by the Assessing Officer under the head“Income from other sources” and the same was upheld by theTribunal in its order dt.8.1.2010. Hence, the Assessing Officer inthis year also taxed the same under the head “Income from othersources.” 4.In the matter of assessee, we have passed the followingorder in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.127/2017 decided on1.8.2017:- 3. The contention raised by the counsel forthe appellant regarding circular no.549referred in question no.1 was not raisedbefore the tribunal therefore, the appropriateremedy for the appellant is to raise the saidcontention before the Tribunal by way ofappropriate application.the appellant regarding circular no.549referred in question no.1 was not raisedbefore the tribunal therefore, the appropriateremedy for the appellant is to raise the saidcontention before the Tribunal by way ofappropriate application. 4. In that view of the matter at this stage,this appeal is not entertained however, libertyis granted to the appellant to file appropriateapplication before the Tribunal. It is madeclear that after the application is preferredand decided it will open for the appellant tochallenge such order and even the presentorder.” 5.It will be open for the appellant to rely upon the decision ofthis court in case Reliance Trading Corporation and ors. vs. TheITO, Jaipur & Ors (2015) 376 ITR 53 (Raj.) before the tribunal. 6.In that view of the matter, the appeal is not admitted.However, liberty is granted to challenge the decision of tribunalafter the same is decided. 7.The appeal stands disposed of. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. Brijesh 63.