9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal fixed on 13/12/2012 and that to without service of form No. 36. That the appeal filed by the Revenue was adjourned for 15th May 2013. On this date Shri U.C. Jain, Advocate obtained copy of Form No. 36 and advised us to file cross objection and accordingly we filed the cross objection on 23rd May 2013. In view of above facts there is no delay in filing cross objection and even if it is technically treated as delayed the same may kindly be condoned and may kindly be heard on merits." 2. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no delay in filing the Cross Objection because the same was filed as soon as the grounds of Appeal in Form No. 36, filed by the Department, were received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional and/or alternative ground at or before the hearing of appeal. 3. The petitioner prays for justice & relief." 7. From the above grounds, raised by both the parties, it is clear that the only grievance relates to the deletion/sustenance of the trading addition. 8. The Facts related to this issue, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30/09/2008 declaring an income of Rs.42,640/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown gross receipts of Rs.3,20,61,527/- which included subleted work to Shri Sabir Mohd. Vyapari and Shri Shakur Contractor Company, Bhadra amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- and Rs.33,23,000/- respectively. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department is in appeal for the relief allowed to the assessee and the assessee has filed the Cross Objection for sustenance of addition of Rs.2,00,000/-. 12. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, stated that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Ward-3, Churu vs. Tak Builders Company, Churu in I.T.A. No.406/Jodh/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 dated 14th March, 2013. Copy of the said order was furnished. 13. In his rival submissions the learned D.R. supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 14. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
