- (1.) By way of this order, we shall dispose of I.T.A. No. 269 of 2014 titled as Telelinks v. CIT and I.T.A. No. 225 of 2014 titled as CIT v. Mattewal Co-op. L/C Society. Before delimiting the substantial questions of law that arise for adjudication, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the facts of each case. I.T.A. No. 269 of 2014
(2.) The assessee is a building contractor. The Assessing Officer refused to accept the profit and loss account, ledger, cash book, etc., and, therefore, applied a net profit rate of 12 per cent, by relying upon a judgment of this court in CIT v. Parbhat Kumar, 2010 323 ITR 675 and a judgment by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Asst. CIT v. Ess. Buildings (P.) Ltd. (I.T.A. No. 707/Chd./1997). Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"), Bathinda, reduced the net profit rate to 6 per cent. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "the ITAT"). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restored the order passed by the Assessing Officer applying a net profit rate of 12 per cent. I.T.A. No. 225 of 2014
(3.) The assessee in this case is also a building contractor. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and applied a net profit rate by 8 per cent. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Amritsar, vide order dated November 6, 2012, reduced the net profit rate to 6 per cent. The Revenue filed an appeal whereas the assessee filed cross-objections. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue but allowed the cross-objections filed by the assessee and reduced the net profit rate to 5.5 per cent.;