9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the books of account without accepting the explanation offered by the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,16,800/- out of total addition of ₹ 56,43,419/- by estimating the net profit @ 6.5 % on account of suppressed net profit without considering the explanation offered by the appellant that in earlier years the net profit was accepted 26% and without accepting the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That under the circumstances, charging of interest u/s 234D is not justified. 4. That under the circumstances, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) is not justified. 3. The Revenue has taken the following ground :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been shown at ₹ 9,30,00,580/- which comes to 6.45 %. The AO has estimated net profit @ 8 % on work done by the appellant amounting to ₹ 60,70,32,574/- and 6 % on work done on sub-contract basis amounting to ₹ 83,47,73,285/- (gross) and has made an addition of ₹ 56,43,419/-. The books of account were rejected by the AO and the net profit was estimated in the present case. I have already held that the AO has rightly rejected the books of account while adjudicating the preceding ground. Now, comes the percentage of net profit which should be adopted which is reasonable and fair in the appellant's case. If the AO's estimation is analyzed in respect of the total contract work of Rs. l,44,18,05,850/- the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the rival submissions and found from record that after pointing out certain defects, the Assessing Officer has rejected the book result of the assessee and computed profit by applying net profit rate of 8% on the work executed by assessee himself and 6 % on the work subcontracted. The CIT(A) after discussing the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for rejection of books of account, upheld his action. However, on merit of addition, the ld. CIT(A) found that on the similar facts in earlier year, the Tribunal in assessee s own case has upheld the net profit rate of 6 % in the assessment year 2004-05. Since during the year under consideration, the assessee himself has shown net profit rate of 6.45 %, the CIT(A) applied net pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
