9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... controverted the submissions made by ld. A.R. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that apart from addition made by A.O by making estimation of net profits, no further addition on account of income declared during the course of survey was called for. Thus this ground of Assessee is allowed. - I.T. A. Nos. 91 & 92 /AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2015 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member Appellant by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. D.R. ORDER Anil Chaturvedi, 1. These two appeals filed by the Assessee are against the two separate orders of CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 21.10.2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 2007-08 respectively. 2. At the outset, before us, both the parties submitted that though the appeals of the Assessee relates to two different assessment years but the facts and circumstances of both the years are similar except for the assessment years and amounts involved and they have common submissions to make for both the appeals and therefore both the appeals can be heard together. We therefore proceed to dispose of both the appeals together for the sake of convenience and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Assessee was therefore asked to show cause the reasons for the non inclusion of the amount admitted at the time of survey. The various submissions of the Assessee were not found acceptable to the A.O. A.O noted that though Assessee had disclosed unaccounted income over and above his regular income but the net profit was reflected at ₹ 9,34,724/-. He was therefore of the view that the disclosure made by the Assessee at the time of survey was set off by claiming excessive expenses and further Assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of expenses debited to Profit and Loss account which were excessive when compared with earlier years. He thereafter relying on the decisions of Tribunal in the case of Maruti Nandan Infotech Ltd. and Hariom Steel, rejected the book results disclosed by the Assessee and estimated the Profit at 3% of the receipts of ₹ 1,93,16,587/- and accordingly made an addition of ₹ 5,79,497/-. He also considered the income of ₹ 20 lacs that was admitted by Assessee at the time of survey, as income of the Assessee and added it to the income. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who upheld the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been admitted by the appellant that it is a government contractor. There is no question of any suppressed gross receipts from a government contract. And if any receipt from the government has been suppressed it can be easily established by furnishing the documents showing the actual receipts. No such documents have been furnished to show that actual receipts are more than recorded in the books. However, it is very easy to suppress income from such contract receipts because actual expenditure is made by the contract or and only he is privy to the real expenditure. Thus by inflating actual expenditure income can be suppressed which is the case here. And therefore it has to be held that what was surrendered during the course of survey was net taxable income over and above the income shown in the books and to that extent the contention in this regard has no merit. The Assessing Officer has rightly pointed out that what was surrendered at the time of survey was taxable income and the indirect retraction made now is not acceptable in absence of any evidence is support of such retraction. This ground is therefore rejected. 2.4. During the course of appellate proceedings it was notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... net profit is estimated, the income and expenses are taken care of and more so when the amount of undisclosed income was on account of inflation of expenses. He has further submitted that Revenue has been unable to point out as to which are expenses are bogus and further the Assessee could not have manipulated the expenses, when the books of accounts were seized by Revenue and were in their possession. For the proposition that when income is estimated there could be no further disallowance, he placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 and Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aggarwal Engg. Co. (2008) 302 ITR 456. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O and ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that Assessee during the course of survey proceeding u/s. 133A has made disclosure of ₹ 20 lacs. The reply of the Assessee to question no. 25 also reveals that the additional income of ₹ 20 lacs was offered on account of expenses being non verifiable in nature. It is also fact that in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
