9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the action of Assessing Officer in adopting 15% ratio. After taking into consideration totality of facts, we are of considered view that if the estimation of net profit as proposed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is further reduced by 1% (one percent) i.e. brought down to 9% of total gross contract receipts for all the assessment years i.e. assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, it would meet the ends of justice. We hold and direct, accordingly. Decided partly in favor of assessee. - ITA Nos. 1566, 1563 & 1565/PUN/2014, ITA No. 1564/PUN/2014, ITA Nos. 1689 to 1692/PUN/2014 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM Assessee by : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue by : Shri Ajay Modi ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : These set of cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. ITA No. 1566/PUN/2014 by the assessee and ITA No. 1689/PUN/2014 by the Department are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Nashik dated 10-06-2014 for the assessment year 2008-09. ITA No. 1563/PUN/2014 by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the total gross contract receipts. The Assessing Officer uniformly applied 15% ratio for making addition in assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. 2.1 In assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer made specific additions u/s. 69C ₹ 28,95,37,659/-, u/s. 69 ₹ 40,02,044/-, u/s. 69B ₹ 1,36,15,000/-, disallowance of contract expenses ₹ 4,09,97,440/- and disallowance of various other expenses ₹ 8,04,078/-. Total additions made by Assessing Officer in assessment year 2010-11 are to the tune of ₹ 34,89,56,221/-. Thus, the additions made by Assessing Officer during assessment years under appeal on the basis of statement of assessee during survey are as under : Assessment Year 15% 2008-09 7966282 2009-10 35442767 2010-11 - 2011-12 21809818 Apart from the addition made on estimation of Net profit the Assessing Officer made minor additions under other heads of income, as well. These additions are not subject matter of dispute in presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of CIT(A) is considered, then Net Profit would be at ₹ 4,13,66,511/- [Rs.3,28,67,371 + Depreciation ₹ 84,99,140], which will be rated at 12.58% [Rs.4,13,66,511 / ₹ 32,86,73,713x100], as against profit shown by appellant at ₹ 3,13,91,032/- [Rs.2,28,91,891 + Depreciation ₹ 84,99,140], which is @ 9.55% [Rs.3,13,91,032 / ₹ 32,86,73,713 x 100]. As the appellant has shown reasonable profit, further estimated addition made at ₹ 99,75,480/- by the CIT(A) is not justified and hence, addition may please be deleted. [4] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 40,02,044/- considering income from other sources, even though it is a rough working and no the income as assumed by the A.O. and CIT(A). Therefore, addition may please be deleted. [5] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 40,02,044/- considering income from other sources, even though it is a rough working and not entirely pertaining to the year under consideration. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee recorded during survey proceedings. It is a well settled law that no addition can be made merely on the basis of statement without there being any cogent evidence. The ld. AR pointed that though during course of survey, the assessee admitted and declared additional income, however, at subsequent stage the assessee retracted from the statement. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of assessee for making additions. The Assessing Officer without any basis estimated net profit @ 15%. In first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced it to 10%. However, while determining the rate at 10% no rational has been given by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4.2 The learned Authorized Representative filed an application to withdraw ground no.1 in appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 5. On the other hand Shri Ajay Modi representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. The ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has reduced the ratio of net profit from 15% to 10% without considering the fact that the assessee had made disclosure of ₹ 8.78 crores during survey. No valid reason has been given by assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Financial Year 2007- 08. The details of investments made by assessee in the name of various persons are as under: 1. Shri Sanjay Digambar Patil. 1137500 2. Shri Shankar Mohan Jadhav 3000000 3. Shri Vinod Jagannath Patil 3543000 4. Shri Ajit Ashok Rane 3145000 5. Shri Sanjay Digambar Patil 1987500 6. Shri Yogesh Namdev Mahajan 1200000 7. Shri Vinod Jagannath Patil 1893000 8. Shri Yogesh Namdev Mahajan 1917000 9. Shri Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Sarver 1587500 19410500 Thus, the total disclosure for the assessment year 2011-12 was to the tune of ₹ 2.95 crores. Subsequently, the assessee retracted from the disclosure mode. The Assessing Officer made addition by estimating income @ 15% of the total gross contract receipts in assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. In First Appellate P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der: 11.2 During the appellate proceedings, I have gone through the assessment order, remand report and the appellant' submission and comments on remand report and find that there is no force in the contention of the appellant. I have verified the said impounded papers on the basis of which addition was made by the A.O. and find that there is clear indication that these are the receipts of other sources, rent, etc. of the appellant. It is admitted by the appellant that there are certain transactions recorded in the impounded registers, however, they have not been recorded in the appellant's books. As the appellant has not recorded these income from other sources, the A.O. is justified in making the additions. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 40,02,044/- is hereby confirmed. The ld. AR of assessee has failed to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with respect to aforesaid addition. These receipts are stated to be over and above trading receipts. Accordingly, we find no reason to take a contrary view. Thus, ground no.4 and 5 raised by assessee in appeal for assessment year 2010-11 are dismissed. It would be relevant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
