9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) erred in confirming its rejection simply in the /absence of complete vouchers for purchases, wages etc. which by Date of Hearing 07.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2018 itself would not be sufficient to hold that true profits of the business cannot be ascertained. 3. Because the CIT(A) was wrong in observing that 95% of the contract receipts have been claimed as deduction ignoring the opening and closing of work in progress. 4. Because the appellant, a civil contractor, had to incur incumbent expenditure over building material wages etc. without which the work could not be executed. In the absence of availability of complete vouchers, the comparable reasonableness of percentage of expenditure over receipts ought to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the payments have mostly been made in cash for below Rs. 20,000/- in respect of purchases. The CIT(A) sustained the addition on the ground that more than 95% of the receipts has been claimed as deduction under the head purchases and wages. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the books of account of the appellant were duly audited u/s 44AB and the audit report was duly submitted before the AO, the application of net profit percentage of 8% by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) is wrong and unwarranted; that in the absence of any error or omission in the regularly kept books of account, the CIT(A) erred in confirming its rejection simply in the /absence of complete vouchers for purchases, wages, etc., which, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 5.5% for A.Y. 2010-11 and 5.51% for A.Y. 2011-12. 9. The ld. CIT(A), however, has not taken into consideration the past history of the assessee. In 'CIT and Others vs. PNC Construction Company Ltd.', order dated 04.04.2013, in ITA No.501 of 2009 rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the past history needs to be followed in such cases. The average net profit rate of the last three years comes to 5.25%. The assessee has, though, shown the NPR of 5.01%. 10. Then, the 8% NPR confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was applied by the AO has observed (Para 4 of the assessment order) that the net profit rate shown by the assessee was 6.7%, whereas, actually, it was shown at 5.01%. Though the ld. CIT(A) took due note (impugned order, para 6.1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
