9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant-revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has called in question the order dated 3.4.2017 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Camp at Surat (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in ITA No.920/Ahd/2015 by proposing the following question, stated to be a substantial question of law:- "Whether on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 143(3) of the Act on 28.2.2014 by making addition of Rs. 1,71,40,163/- due to difference in receipts reflected in 26AS and in the return of income of the assessee. In the return of income, the assessee had disclosed gross profit at 13.50% on the total turnover of Rs. 9,92,47,244/- and net profit at 1.96% on the said turnover. As per 26AS, the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 11,63,87,407 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these receipts could not be shifted by her to the next financial year. Hence, the difference of Rs. 1,71,40,163/- was added to the total income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration, the assessee had disclosed a total turnover of Rs. 9,92,47,244/- in the return of income. The differential amount was not shown in the return of income on the ground that such amount was received from the Municipal Corporation in the subsequent financial year. It is an admitted position that such income had ///accrued to the assessee in the financial year 2010-11 and hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipts that was required to be taxed and not the entire amount of the receipts. 8. In the light of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed.< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
