ITA 711 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 711 of 2009 Date of decision 5 .2.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar ...Appellant Versus M/s Vishwanath, Contractor Safidon, Jind ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh in ITA No. 678/CHD/2008 and in CO No.31/CHD/2008 in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue has claimed that various questions of law would arise for consideration of this Court. However, we find that there are pure findings of fact. The Tribunal has noticed that the books of the assessee were found to be ingenuine and the said fact was admitted. Accordingly, the Revenue was to calculate/ estimate the net income under the circumstances. The CIT(A) has cited comparable cases on identical fact like that of Shri Subhash Kundu, Contractor wherein a rate of 8% has been applied on total payments and has decided the matter by directing that net profit of 8% on the total additions be applied. The Revenue had argued the imposition of 30% to 40% which was found practically impossible. The Tribunal further noticed that even for the assessment year 2006-07, vide ITA 711 of 2009 2 order dated 19.5.2008, the Assessing Officer was directed to apply net profit rate of 8% on the gross receipts. The decision in the case of Jora Singh was also cited to support the order of the CIT(A) where rate of 8% on total payments was applied. Accordingly, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal affirming the view taken by the CIT(A). No question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court warranting admission of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 5.2.2010 Judge okg