Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
Gottumukkal Sri Hari Raju,, Narsapur vs The Ito,, Palakol on 11 October, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM "SMC" BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 269/VIZ/2016
(Asst. Year : 2010-11)
Gottumukkal Sirhari Raju, Vs. ITO, Ward-1,
Contractor, Mogalturu Road, Palakol.
Narsapur, W.G. District.
PAN No. AAFHG 4319 B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari - Advocate.
Department By : Shri T. Satyanandam - Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 20/09/2017.
Date of pronouncement : 11/10/2017.
ORDER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajahmundry, dated 03/03/2016 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. Facts are in brief that the assessee is a sub-contractor in M/s.Coastal Engineering Works, Hyderabad, filed its return of income by declaring total income of ₹ 8,94,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noted that the bills/vouchers produced by the assessee are self-made and no regular books of account maintained and filed before the Assessing Officer. When Assessing Officer pointed out the above 2 ITA No. 269/VIZ/2016 (Gottumukkal Srihari Raju) discrepancies, assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to estimate income at 5% of the gross receipts. Accordingly, Assessing Officer has estimated the income of the assessee at 5% of the gross receipts and assessment is completed.
3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the Assessing Officer ought to have granted depreciation and prayed that same may be granted. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the explanation given by the assessee, has observed that the assessment is completed on agreed basis, therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that depreciation has to be granted separately. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
4. On being aggrieved, assessee carried matter in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the Assessing Officer has estimated the income of the assessee at 5% of the gross receipts, it is a statutory obligation on the part of the Assessing Officer to grant depreciation. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Y.Ramachandra Reddy in ITTA No. 48/2002 by order dated 30/07/2014.
6. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below.
7. I have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below.
3ITA No. 269/VIZ/2016
(Gottumukkal Srihari Raju)
8. The assessee is a sub-contractor and no regular books of account are maintained and the bills/vouchers filed before the Assessing Officer are found self-made. When Assessing Officer asked the assessee with regard to the bills/vouchers, the assessee himself voluntarily offered to estimate the income at 5% of the gross receipts. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer estimated the income of the assessee. Once, assessee himself has requested the Assessing Officer to estimate the income and the Assessing Officer by considering the request made by the assessee, estimation is made on agreed basis and filing an appeal subsequently, by claiming depreciation, in my view, assessee is not justified. Moreover, assessee has not explained why the books of account, proper vouchers & receipts are not maintained. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has estimated the income at 5% of the gross receipts is, in my view, fair and reasonable. So far as case law relied on by the assessee in the case of Y. Ramachandra Reddy (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case because estimate itself is at very low and therefore no separate depreciation has to be granted. Therefore, by taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has made a reasonable estimation, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
4ITA No. 269/VIZ/2016
(Gottumukkal Srihari Raju)
9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 11th day of October, 2017.
Sd/-
(V. DURGA RAO) Judicial Member Dated : 11 t h October, 2017.
vr/-
Copy to:
1. The Assessee - Gottumukkal Sirhari Raju, Contractor, Mogalturu Road, Narsapur, W.G. District.
2. The Revenue - ITO, Ward-1, Palakol.
3. The CIT, Raj ahmundry.
4. The CIT(A), Raj ahmundry.
5. The D.R., Visakhapatnam.
6. Guard file.
By order (VUKKEM RAMBABU) Senior Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.