9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of CIT(A) is silent on these important aspects, we are of the view that the entire issue requires fresh consideration by CIT(A) for a denovo order. Accordingly, we restore the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh denovo order. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No:- 2707/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2018 - Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. T.P.S. Kang. Adv. For the Revenue : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR ORDER PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Assessee has been directed agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .25 crores, break up of this additional income is given as under: Additional income of ₹ 65 lacs for A.Y. 2009-10, ₹ 70 lacs for A.Y. 2010-11 ₹ 90 lacs for A.Y. 2011-12. This income is over and above our regular income for which gross income of (2.25 crores is offered during the A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 201-12. Also, income of the following years we shall be filing at the approximately similar margin as above. This income I am voluntarily offering to avoid any kind of litigation with the department and to cover up all type of discrepancies arising out of none submission of wages bills/vouchers, purchase bills or other expenses which have been incurred considering the nature of the business. These documents may not be avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pported by evidence in the form of bank statement. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the purchase bills in respect of cement and sand were also not produced. Noticing these deficiencies/discrepancies, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the books of account of the assessee and estimated the net profit rate at the 8%. The relevant portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5.4 I have carefully considered the assessment order and submission thereof. The facts of the case as per assessment order are that a survey under section 133A was carried out on 17.09.2010 at the premises of the assessee firm and the partners were asked to produce^ copies of ledger account of wages, purchases, sundry creditors unsecured loans, material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of material supplied by the contractee but booked as an expense by the assessee. 5.5 In appeal the appellant claimed that the contract rates were inclusive of material and the contractee deducted the value of materials supplied by them. The appellant had submitted the ledger account of the material supplied by the employer and also the contra credits in the contract receipts. It is a common practice that in a contract the employer supplies material of their specification-and deduct the same from the bills. The perusal of the details filed by the appellant showed that there were increase in the expenses under the head Aluminum fittings, cement and bricks in the 7 months period post survey. The appellant was therefore asked to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere mentioned as to be provided by the contracted. The appellant produced bills of Sri Ram Builders, P K Builders and Anupam Steel builders. The perusal of the bills showed that that neither the ST Numbers, nor the TIN Number were mentioned in the case of Sri Ram Builders and Shri D K Builders from whom purchases of ₹ 17,18,250/- and ₹ 10,11,300 had been shown respectively. No bill of M/s Mahabir Aluminum from purchase of ₹ 8 lacs had been shown was produced,-Only- bill of Anupam Steel Centre dated 15.10.2009 and 10.10.2009 were produced. No evidence of payments in respect of these bills and transportation of material were filed. The copy of ledger account produced by the appellant showed some payments through cheques ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 13.02.2015 of Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the disclosures of additional income, at the time of survey, amounting to ₹ 70,00,000/-, should have been accepted and no further addition should have been made either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for Assessee also submitted that despite deficiencies/discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A), she should not have rejected the assessee s books of accounts and that in any case the estimation of net profit rate at the 8% was excessive/arbitrary. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee drew our attention to paragraph 2 of the Assessment Order to highlight that the net profit ratio in the case of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
