2022 (2) TMI 587 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of book results - estimated the profit from the contract receipt @ 8% on the total contract receipt - HELD THAT - Since the assessee in the instant case has already declared the net profit of 2.31% on the contract receipt as per the finding given by the CIT(A) himself therefore, respectfully following case RUPA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. OTHERS 2012 (9) TMI 326 - ITAT DELHI and MADHAV PROPCON PVT. LTD. 2015 (7) TMI 445 - ITAT DELHI we hold that no further addition is called for on account of the contract receipt from PACL. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the contract receipt of ?15 crore and the payments to two sub-contractors were genuine.
2. Whether the addition of ?15 crore made by the AO as "income from other sources" was justified.
3. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in treating the receipt of ?15 crore as the assessee's own money introduced in the books under section 68.
4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to assess the amount of ?15 crore as per section 68 read with section 115BBE without giving an opportunity to the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Genuineness of the ?15 Crore Receipt and Payments to Sub-Contractors:
The AO found that the sub-contractors, Global Infrastructure and Kingston Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., were fictitious entities with no physical presence or capability to undertake land development work. The AO issued a detailed questionnaire to the assessee to ascertain the nature of work done, accounts, and TDS details. Despite the assessee's submission of documents and TDS certificates, the AO concluded that the sub-contractors were non-existent and the transactions were sham. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting the suspicious nature of the transactions and the lack of basic information regarding the land development work.

2. Addition of ?15 Crore as "Income from Other Sources":
The AO added ?15 crore as "income from other sources," concluding that the assessee received the amount without executing any work. The CIT(A) sustained this addition but directed the AO to treat it as cash credit under section 68.

3. Treatment of ?15 Crore under Section 68:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to treat the ?15 crore as cash credit under section 68, citing the lack of genuine explanation for the credit. The CIT(A) applied section 115BBE, which mandates non-deduction of any expenditure or allowance against such income.

4. Assessment under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE:
The assessee argued that the addition under section 68 was unjustified as the amount was received from PACL and not as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal found that the AO's inference of non-existence of sub-contractors was incorrect, as notices under section 133(6) were issued and replied to by the sub-contractors. The Tribunal held that the addition was based on presumption and not on concrete evidence.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the sub-contractors existed and had responded to notices under section 133(6).
- The Tribunal noted that the AO's conclusion that the sub-contractors were non-existent was incorrect.
- The Tribunal referred to the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kamlesh & Others, where only the profit from such receipts could be brought to tax and not the entire amount.
- The Tribunal found that the assessee had already declared a net profit of 2.31% on the contract receipt and no further addition was warranted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the addition of ?15 crore was not justified and the assessee had already declared an appropriate net profit on the contract receipt.

← Previous Next →