Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2006 (11) TMI 253 - AT - Income TaxPowers Of Appellate Tribunal u/s 255 - claiming refund after adjustment of pre-paid taxes - whether after granting of refund u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) notice u/s 143(2) could be issued or not? - rejection of the books of account u/s 145(2) - Net profit rate - HELD THAT - The powers of the Hon ble President of ITAT are absolute discretion of the Hon ble President to constitute a Special Bench for disposal of any particular case. Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITAT also held that the functions entrusted under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 255 to the President of the Appellate Tribunal are obviously administrative function. They have nothing to do with exercise of any judicial powers. It was further held that it is obvious that the President in this connection may even act suo motu if it is brought to his notice that any important point is pending for decision in the matter which requires to be decided by a larger Bench. If the President acting on such information and in bona fide exercise of his powers constitutes a larger Bench or a Special Bench for deciding a matter it cannot be said that he Acts ultra vires his functions entrusted to him by the Legislature u/s 255(1) read with section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961. Notice u/s 143 - We are of the view that the principle laid down by Hon ble Jurisdictional M.P. High Court in the case of Kamal Textiles 1990 (12) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT would squarely apply to the case where refund is granted by the Assessing Officer after processing of the return u/s 143(1)(a)(ii). Accordingly the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Apogee International 1996 (3) TMI 119 - DELHI HIGH COURT and the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board 2002 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT also fortify our opinion on the said legal proposition. Considering above legal proposition we may revert back to the first decision of the ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arihant Builders Developers Investors (P.) Ltd. Indore in IT Appeal of 1993 for assessment year 1991-92 in which the Tribunal decided the referred question in favour of the assessee which is heavily relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The D.B. of ITAT Indore Bench in IT Appeal of 1993 decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the premise that processing u/s 143(1)(a) is an assessment and therefore once refund is granted no fresh assessment proceedings could begin by issue of notice u/s143(2). The same contentions were raised before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee. Thus the Tribunal concluded that the assessment has become complete in that case and nothing more was needed to be complete the assessment. The ld. counsel for the assessee therefore demolished his own case by contending now that the processing of the return u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment as is also held in his own argued case of Om Prakash Bagria 2006 (4) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT . As per the decision in the case of Om Prakash Bagria there is a distinction between processing of the return u/s 143(1)(a) and section 143(2). The case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee would not support his contention at all. Hence we hold that the Assessing Officer was perfectly justified and have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) even after refund was granted to the assessee u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Rejection of the books - failure to prove the genuineness of payments - labour charges and cartage expenses - HELD THAT - Considering the finding of the authorities below we do not find any merit in the case of the assessee with regard to the rejection of the books of account with the aid of section 145(2) of the Act. We confirm the orders of the authorities below to that extent. Net profit rate - HELD THAT - The assessee is also civil contractor engaged in construction work taken on contract and the gross receipt of the assessee are below Rs. 40 lakhs. Therefore in our considered view the net profit rate of 12.5 per cent applied by the authorities below in the case of the assessee is excessive and exorbitant. We accordingly modify the application of net profit rate from 12.5 per cent to 8 per cent on the gross receipt shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall work out the profit accordingly. As a result this ground of appeal of the assessee is in IT Appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly we answer the question referred to the Special Bench in favour of the Revenue.
|