9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idential apartment project. Consequent to the search the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act offered taxable income of ₹ 30 lakhs in its hands for Assessment Years 2007-08 2008-09 by adopting the net profit at 4% of the turnover ₹ 7,52,64,405 on the Concord Project. In response to notices under section 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act, the assessee filed returns of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 on 14.9.2010 declaring incomes of ₹ 28,35,121 and ₹ 1,72,010 respectively. The incomes declared therein were in accordance with the declaration made by the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act @ 4% of turnover. The Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee had not given the basis for declaring the profit at 4% of turnover, proposed to adopt the income @ 6% of the gross turnover, to which proposition the assessee objected. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation put forward by the assessee and proceeded to estimate the net income of the assessee at 8% (as against 6% proposed by him initially) of total turnover of ₹ 7,52,66,405 viz. at ₹ 60,21,312 and assessed the same in the hands of the assessee at S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal before us. Assessment Year 2006-07 (ITA No.974/Bang/2011) 5.0 For Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The impugned order under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act of the authorities below is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. The impugned appeal order is illegal, without jurisdiction, is against the provisions and Law /Act and has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice and equity. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in restricting the payment of interest under section 244A to 8 months only. 4. The appellant craves for leave to, add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal. 6.0 The grounds raised at S.Nos.1, 2 and 4 are general in nature and no arguments being urged by the assessee in this regard, no adjudication is called for thereon. 7.0 In the ground at S.No.3, the assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(Appeals) restricting the payment of interest under section 244A of the Act on refund of ₹ 7,29,074 for a period of 8 months. 7.2 We have heard both parties on this matter and carefully perused and consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act of the authorities below is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. The impugned appeal order is illegal, without jurisdiction, is against the provisions and Law /Act and has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice and equity. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in estimating the net profit ratio at 6% as against the appellant s claim of 4% of total turnover as profit. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) below erred in not disposing of the issue of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C even though the appellant has raised the grounds during the course of appeal proceedings. 5. The appellant craves for leave to, add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal. 10.0 The grounds raised at S.Nos.1,2 and 5 are general in nature and having not been urged in the hearings before us, no adjudication is called for thereon. 11.1 In the ground raised at S.No.3, the assessee challenges the action of the learned CIT(Appeals) in estimating the net profit ratio at 6% of total turnover as against the assessee's dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly. In appeal, the learned CIT(Appeals), it is submitted, did not accept both the assessee's declaration under section 132(4) to be assessed at 4% of total turnover and the Assessing Officer s estimation of income at 8% but resorted to estimating the assessee's income at 6% of total turnover. It is strongly argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that both the authorities below, without finding any error in the assessee's declaration of income, under section 132(4) of the Act at 4% of turnover, have arbitrarily resorted to higher estimation of income without bringing on record even an iota of evidence to establish that the assessee had in fact earned income at 8% or 6% of total turnover as estimated by them. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that it is clear that the authorities below have failed to establish, as is required by law, that the assessee earned even a single rupee more than what it had declared under section 132(4) of the Act. There being no basis for the learned CIT(Appeals) s estimation of income at 6% of total turnover, it is pleaded that the income as declared by the assessee at 4% of total turnover be accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
