1999 (12) TMI 118 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of addition made by AO on contract receipts
2. Treatment of unexplained cash credits

Issue 1: Confirmation of addition made by AO on contract receipts

The appeal challenged the order confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by applying a net profit rate (npr) of 10.5% on contract receipts. The assessee argued that the declared net profit rate of 8.69% was reasonable, citing previous Tribunal decisions. The Departmental Representative supported the AO's decision, referring to other cases. The Tribunal examined a similar case involving Jain Construction Co., where a net profit rate of 12.5% was upheld. However, the Tribunal found that the decision in the Jain Construction Co. case did not support the Revenue's contention in the present case.

After considering the submissions and reviewing the orders, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 10% on contract receipts, as held in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. This adjustment resulted in a reduced income from contract receipts after considering depreciation and interest, leading to a net profit rate of 8.5%. The AO was instructed to grant appropriate relief accordingly.

Issue 2: Treatment of unexplained cash credits

The next ground of appeal concerned the AO's view that cash credits in the names of two individuals remained unexplained and were treated as income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's decision.

The assessee provided evidence, including a letter, affidavit, and certificate, to support the genuineness of the cash credits. The Departmental Representative raised doubts about discrepancies in statements provided by the depositors. The Tribunal reviewed the statements and facts presented during the hearing.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the deposits made by the individuals were genuine. For one deposit, the depositor's statement and supporting documents sufficiently proved the source of funds, discharging the burden of proof under section 68. The interest on these deposits treated as income by the AO was also canceled.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's findings on the cash credits, determining them to be genuine. As no separate addition was made by the AO for these credits, the assessee was not entitled to further relief. The appeal was partly allowed.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, addressing the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision on each matter.