Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (4) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rofit rate on the gross receipt. No appeal by revenue. Held that- there was no error in the order of Tribunal. - 18809-CII of 2007 and 391 and 602 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2008 - SATISH KUMAR MITTAL and RAKESH KUMAR GARG JJ. Sanjiv Bansal for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. Rakesh Kumar Garg J.-C. M. No. 18809-CII of 2007 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 263 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 3. CM stands disposed of. I.T. A. Nos. 391 and 602 of 2007 4. This judgment will dispose of I. T. A. Nos. 391 and 602 of 2007 as in both the appeals the same question of law is being raised by the Revenue on similar facts against the orders passed by the Tri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal legally justified in holding that in the case of contractors profit can be worked on estimate basis at 12 per cent. of the gross receipts, when the assessee claims to be maintaining proper books of account which have duly been audited by a chartered accountant, but does not produce complete books for verification before the Assessing Officer ?" 7. The necessary facts for disposal of these appeals are being noticed from I.T. A. No. 391 of 2007. The assessee-firm was carrying on the business of construction of roads at various places as per agreement with the various Government authorities. The assessee filed its return of income on October 30, 2000 declaring net income of Rs. 8,24,512 which was pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... specified in section 40(b) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the CBDT Circular No. 737, dated February 23, 1996 ([1998] 218 ITR (St.) 97). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated January 30, 2004 allowed the appeal of the assessee partly and held that the gross receipts could not be termed as profits and gains for the purpose of section 28 of the Act and that the assessee had a right to claim further additional rebate, deduction, allowance or other benefits from the profits and gains earned by the assessee as per the provisions contained in sections 29 to 43C of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further pointed out that the receipts shown by the assessee had not been doubted/suspected by the Assessing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... even the statement of the con-cerned person recorded during the assessment proceedings was not considered by the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the assessee neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) claimed that the figure declared by it at Rs. 3,56,00,115 was wrong figure. We, therefore, do not see any merit in this contention of the assessee that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have considered the figure of Rs. 3,40,40,831 instead of Rs. 3,56,00,115. It is also true that the asses-see could not meet the objections raised by the Assessing Officer and had not produced the relevant vouchers to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. At the same tim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tnership deed was allowed. 11. Not satisfied with the above order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the record. 13. Sh. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue has argued that the Tribunal was not justified while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to tax the gross receipts declared by the assessee by applying a net profit rate of 12 per cent. against the addition of Rs. 3,47,99,824 made in the assessment order as no evidence of expenses incurred in the contract work was produced before the Assessing Officer when the assessee claims to be maintaining, proper books of account which ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates