9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard together and disposed off, by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of executing civil contracts, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 by admitting total income of Rs. 57,83,290/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and after following the due procedure, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has noted that the assessee was asked to file information in respect of details of expenditure such as books of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the estimation made by the A.O. is excessive and the A.R. of the assessee relied on the case of DCIT Vs. M. Rama Rao in ITA No.184/Vizag/2010 dated 27.12.2010 of ITAT Vizag Bench and submitted that the addition made by the A.O. may be reduced. The Ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee, he has observed that the book results adopted by the assessee is too low. But at the same time, estimation adopted by the A.O. is too high and A.O. has not given cogent reasons as to why such a percentage was adopted. By following the order of Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of M. Rama Rao (supra) the CIT(A) directed the A.O. to adopt 6.5% on the gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of bank guarantee to obtain the tenders and submitted that it has to be treated as a business income. The Ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee, he has treated it as a business income. The assessee is not able to substantiate before us to show that the deposits made by the assessee are for the purpose of business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest income received by the assessee from the bank deposits is income from business. Therefore, we hold that interest received by the assessee is 'income from other sources' and we accordingly reverse the order of the CIT(A). 6. In view of our decision in the assessment year 2008-09, the year under consideration i.e. 2009-10, interest income is treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income takes care of irregularities committed by the assessee, but making further additions amount to double addition which is not permitted by law. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the explanation of the assessee, he has observed that once the income is estimated, no other addition is permissible on the basis of rejected books and as such the impugned addition made by the A.O. is set aside and allowed the claim of the assessee. We find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the CIT(A). This ground of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed. 8. So far as cross appeals filed by the assessee is concerned, in view of our decision above for assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10, the Cross appeals become infructuous and are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
