The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal v. Sukhvinder Singh
[Citation -2017-LL-0710-20]

Citation 2017-LL-0710-20
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal
Respondent Name Sukhvinder Singh
Court HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 10/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags business of construction • civil contractor • net profit rate • original return • work contract • gross receipt • tax effect
Bot Summary: On 8.2.2016, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the tax effect involved was 16,66,247/-, he may be allowed to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi with liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8.2.2016 with liberty as prayed for with the clarification that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 11:49:00 ::: CM-22095-CII-2016 and ITA-28-2013 -2- Tribunal on merits. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the application for recalling the order dated 8.2.2016 and the reasons recorded therein which is supported by an affidavit, the order dated 8.2.2016 is recalled and the appeal bearing ITA-28-2013 is revived. In view of the order of even date passed in CM-22095-CII of 2016, the appeal stands revived. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax for brevity the CIT. The CIT(A) vide order dated 29.9.2011 dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. In view of the above, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 24.9.2012 passed by the Tribunal is set aside.


CM-22095-CII-2016 and ITA-28-2013 (O&M) -1- IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-22095-CII-2016 and ITA-28-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.7.2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ....Appellant. Versus Shri Sukhvinder Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, for appellant. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. CM-22095-CII-2016 1. This is application for recalling order dated 8.2.2016 passed by this Court and for revival of appeal. 2. On 8.2.2016, learned counsel for appellant submitted that since tax effect involved was ` 16,66,247/-, he may be allowed to withdraw appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi with liberty to file application for revival of appeal in case something survives therein. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8.2.2016 with liberty as prayed for with clarification that withdrawal of appeal by revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 11:49:00 ::: CM-22095-CII-2016 and ITA-28-2013 (O&M) -2- Tribunal on merits. Further, legal issue as claimed by revenue was left open to be adjudicated in appropriate case. 3. After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing application for recalling order dated 8.2.2016 and reasons recorded therein which is supported by affidavit, order dated 8.2.2016 is recalled and appeal bearing ITA-28-2013 is revived. 4. CM stands disposed of accordingly. ITA-28-2013 1. In view of order of even date passed in CM-22095-CII of 2016, appeal stands revived. At joint request of learned counsel for parties, appeal is taken up for hearing today itself. 2. This appeal has been filed by revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) against order dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure A-3) passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ) in ITA No. 1233/CHD/2011, for assessment year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether under facts and circumstances of case, Ld. ITAT was right in law in directing Assessing Officer to apply net profit rate @ 6%, whereas complete bills and vouchers have not been maintained by respondent-assessee? (ii) Whether under facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal order is sustainable for determination of income by distinguishing nature of work contract i.e. Building contract or 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 11:49:01 ::: CM-22095-CII-2016 and ITA-28-2013 (O&M) -3- Road contract in view of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in case of Prabhat Kumar, Sirsa v. CIT (293 of 2008)? 3. Put shortly, facts necessary for disposal of present appeal as mentioned therein are that assessee is civil contractor and engaged in business of construction of roads. He filed his original return on 30.9.2008 for assessment year 2008-09 declaring total income at ` 20,44,670/-. said return was processed under Section 143(1) of Act on 31.1.2010. case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of Act were issued along with questionnaire. assessment was framed by Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure A-1) under Section 143(3) of Act at ` 98,59,980/- by applying net profit @ 12% of gross receipt of ` 8,17,02,906/- after reducing material supplied by Government Department for ` 80,122/-. Feeling aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity CIT (A) ]. CIT(A) vide order dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure A-2) dismissed appeal. Against order of CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal vide order dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure A- 3) partly allowed appeal by directing Assessing Officer to make addition on account of net profit rate @ 6%. Hence, present appeal by revenue. 4. order of Tribunal dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure A-3) was also assailed by assessee who had filed ITA No. 17 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 21.7.2016 (Annexure CM-3) allowed appeal and set aside order, Annexure A-3. Further matter had been remitted to 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 11:49:01 ::: CM-22095-CII-2016 and ITA-28-2013 (O&M) -4- Tribunal for fresh decision on merits after scrutiny of all material placed before it by assessee in accordance with law. It had also been noticed therein that such observation would not preclude Revenue from moving any application for revival of present appeal since liberty for same was granted by this Court while permitting appeal to be withdrawn. 7. In view of above, after hearing learned counsel for parties, appeal is allowed and order dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure A-3) passed by Tribunal is set aside. matter is remanded to Tribunal to adjudicate issue on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to parties in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 10, 2017 (AMIT RAWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2017 11:49:01 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal v. Sukhvinder Singh
Report Error