9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase of cement and expenses incurred towards soiling and concrete, etc. 3. The facts related to the issue in brief are that the assessee was engaged in the business of civil contract and had shown gross receipts of Rs. 9,51,866. The net profit had been declared at Rs. 63,227, after reducing the depreciation of Rs. 48,660. The rate of net profit came to 6.64 per cent after depreciation and 12.27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the assessee were not acceptable. However, the net profit rate shown was reasonable. Therefore, there was no question of making further addition in the trading account. Accordingly, the additions made by the AO were deleted. 5. Being aggrieved, the Department is in appeal. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO. In his rival submissions, the learned counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the net profit rate shown by the assessee in this year was not comparable with the preceding years or with other assessees engaged in similar type of business. The assessee had shown net profit rate before depreciation at 12.27 per cent in the civil contract works. This profit appears to be reasonable particularly when the AO has not doubted the same. We also find substance in the submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partner s assessment. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the partner Shri Amritlal was separately assessed to tax and he had made the advance of Rs. 20,000, which could be considered only in his hands. Accordingly the addition was deleted. The learned CIT(A) stated while deleting the aforesaid addition that the partner had confirmed the loan. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dual, then the responsibility of the assessee is over. Whether that person is an income-tax payer or not and where he had brought this money from, is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a satisfactory explanation and produces the person who has deposited the amount, then the burden of the firm is discharged and in that case that credit entry cannot be treated to be the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
