9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than G.P. rate of 5.06, disclosed in the earlier year. (ii) The CIT(A) has contradicted himself and passed a perverse order by upholding the contention of the assessee and yet making the ad hoc addition of Rs. 1 lac for "incriminating aspect and leakage of income," "due to shortcomings pointed out by the A.O." (iii) The CIT(A) has passed perverse order in holding that the deficiencies pointed out by the A.O. were not sufficient to attract the provisions of Sec. 145(3). (iv) The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the factum/quantum of the expenses, such as on salaries were doubtful in light of the disclosed outstanding liabilities etc. (v) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, withdraw or interest any ground or grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also asked to explain the reasons for low rate of profit, which was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 12/08/2010 and stated by the assessee that the work has been carried out in slums and remote areas where cost of material/loading and unloading transportation charges are higher. It is further explained that the assessee's work was of different nature requiring lot of digging and filling work. It is argued that purchase order rates were same in earlier two years but expenditure had increased but the submission was without any corroborative evidence. Similar many of the expenses particularly the expenses under head other direct expenses, water charges, fooding charges, office rent etc. are not without proper vouchers but als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of having proper expenses vouchers etc. alone cannot be made grounds for applying the provision of Sec. 145. In this regard, the onus is on the department to prove that accounts are really defective or incomplete to invoke such harsh measures. The above views are also echoed in the following decisions:- 1. Uttam Chuna Pathan Udhyog 20 TW 422 (Jaipur Bench) 2. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 20 (Delhi). In this regard, apart from the case laws relied upon by the learned A.R., even in other cases, including of M/s Gotton Line Khanij Udhyog (256 ITR 243) (Raj.) and Vinod Kumar Promad Kumar (66 TTJ 722) (Jodhpur Bench), it is held that the books of account cannot be rejected merely for want of stock register and if otherwise no other defects are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that number of deficiencies were found in the books of account including opening and closing stock. Payment through cash, self made vouchers, which were verified by the Assessing Officer and detailed findings have been given in the assessment order and these defects are sufficient in case of civil contractor to reject the book result. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the book result U/s 145(3) of the Act and he also reasonable to estimate the income in case of civil contractor. 5. At the outset, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the assessee was maintaining complete books of account, which was duly audited U/s 44AB of the Act. All the transactions are fully vouched by bills/vouchers/documents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 2008-09 7,81,25,010/- 1,45,93,602/- 18.68% 39,70,558/- 5.08% From the above table, it can be noted that the net profit rate decalred by the assessee is better than the immediately preceding year. The net profit has been increased from Rs. 6,37,917/- to Rs. 39,70,558/-. Gross receipt has also been increased from 2.62 crores to Rs. 7.81 crores. The various courts have held that if the assessee has declared better G.P. compared to preceding year, no addition can be made. The case laws referred by the A.R. are as under:- 1. ITO Vs. M/s Bhagirath Kaswan Contractor (ITA No. 404/Jodh/2013). 2. Addl.CIT Vs. Lakhani Shoes Limited 34 Tax Worls 32 (JP) (ITA No. 173/JP/2000). 3. J.C. Sharma Vs. ITO 33 Tax World 80 (JP) (ITA No. 258 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... current outstanding liability as on 31/3/2008 at Rs. 70,83,850/-, which was more than 30% of expenditure under the head of salary and wages and also pending for more than three months, which is not possible in contractor line. The assessee's claimed that, it did not receive the amount from the BSNL, therefore, wages were outstanding, which was received later on but the assessee has not submitted any evidence regarding the payment from the BSNL later on except written reply and also further subsequent withdrawal from the bank account and reimbursement of the salary and wages in cash. Therefore, learned CIT(A) was not right in holding that defects pointed out by the Assessing Officer cannot be ground of rejection of books of account U/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
