Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata Vs ITO, Ward - 36(1), , Kolkata

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”
(Virtual Court Hearing), BENCH KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM
I.T.A Nos.1979&1980/Kol/2018
Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)

Rajesh Agarwal
C/o Sri S.L. Kochar, Advocate, 5,
Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.
(Appellant)

Vs. 
ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata
(Respondent)
PAN/GIR No.: ADHPA3042Q

Appellant by : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Date of Hearing : 30/09/2020
Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2020

O R D E R

Per Shri S. S. Godara:
These two assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata’s separate orders both dated 30.07.2018 passed in Case No.43/CIT(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/12-13/16-17/Kol & 44/CIT(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/13-14/16-17/Kol involving proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 & 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively; in short ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The assessee’s first and foremost identical grievance is that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in applying profit rate of 8% on the civil construction business receipts resulting in addition of Rs.84,53,313/- and Rs.25,56,747/-; assessment year wise, respectively. Mr. Kochar invited our attention to the assessment order(s) as well as the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion(s) to this effect estimating the assessee’s profit rate declared @1.44 & 1.18% assessment year wise to that a flat rate of 8% in issue. Learned counsel is fair enough in admitting that the assessee had not maintained regular books of accounts since he placed on record the alleged reconstructed accounts resulting in the contractual receipts increased from Rs.3412744/- to Rs.94689239/- in former and that of Rs.37973145/- remaining unchanged in the latter assessment year; respectively. It is sought to be highlighted that Assessing Officer’s assessment orders nowhere found any fault with the assessee’s reconstructed books of accounts allegedly showing the impugned lower profit rates as well.

3. Learned counsel next took us to the assessee’s civil construction turnover(s) pertaining to the impugned two assessment years showing a phenomenal increase as compared to that from assessment year 2007-08 to 2011-12 and (more particularly Rs.38885776 to 94689239/- hereinabove) therefore, the necessary presumption that flows in such an instance is that a corresponding increase in routine sequence expenses is very well justified. He accordingly urged us to delete the additions in both the assessment years.

To know more in details find the attachment file