9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member By Appellant : Shri K.M. Mishra, Advocate By Respondent : Shri Supriya Biswas, DR ORDER Per Bench This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Dhanbad dated 09.07.2013. Assessment was framed by JCIT, Range- 5 Patna u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide his order dated 26.12.2012 for assessment year 2010-11. Shri K.M. Mishra, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Supriya Biswas, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue. 2. Only effective issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts exceed the limits specified under this Section in respect of this line of business as has been held in a number of cases such as by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CGT Vs. A. Vajjiram and Bros. 326 ITR 511, Prem Kumar Vs. Joint CIT in ITA No. 400/JU/2005 by Jodhpur Bench of the ITAT and by the Patna Bench of the ITAT in Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. JCIT, Range 4, Patna in ITA No.546/Pat/2007 dated 16.05.2008. The Assessing Officer has already allowed reduction from the gross receipts of material supplied by the contractee department and royalty. No further reduction is required to be made from the gross receipts before the application of net profit rate. The only mistake which is there in the action of the AO is regarding addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable in the present case is contrary to the view taken by Hon'ble Patna High Court. 7. For that, any other ground may be taken at the time of hearing. 5. Before us Ld.AR for the assessee reiterated the arguments that were submitted before Ld. CIT(A) and he requested the Bench to decide the issue on merit. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the aforesaid discussion, we find the AO has estimated the profit @ 8% after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act which was subsequently confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Now the question befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s receipts. Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) on the issue with conclusion that the rate applied has been rightly based on the net profit rate on different years. 3. In the case of Metropolitan Engg. Co. Opt. Society Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA No.s 2172 2172/Kol/2010 it has been held that in the AY 2001-02, the assessee is engaged in civil contract business with others business segments. AO estimated net income from the work contract @ 10% on the gross contract receipts. Assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence for purchase and other expenses. Purchase expenses not confirmed on an enquiry conducted by the AO u/s. 133(6). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Tribunal relied on the decision of Hon ble Orissa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 it has been held that in the AY 2005-06, the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction. Assessee fails to provide proper evidence in the shape of bills, vouchers, unable to verify purchases before the AO and AO made addition for unexplained purchase, subcontract expenses and under valuation of work-in-progress. The Ld. CIT(A) estimated the total income by applying net profit rate of 4%. Both the assessee and revenue has challenged to the extent of order against them. The Tribunal inclined upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly confirmed. Respectfully following the above principles laid downs by the Hon ble Courts and Tribunals, we are inclined to direct the lower authorities to work out the taxable net pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
