9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri S. K. Agrawalla, FCA ORDER Per L. P. Sahu, AM The Revenue has filed appeal against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 28.02.2018 for the A.Y.2014-2015 and the assessee has also filed cross objection. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in its appeal are as under :- 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in law. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) is not justified with his decision in restricting the addition to ₹ 7,17,180/- instead of ₹ 1,29,44,999/- made by the AO u/s.69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 towards unexplained cash deposits. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. C1T(A) is not correct to es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in restricting the additions to the extent of ₹ 7,17,180 in view of the fact that the profit embedded in the undisclosed contract receipts are to be taxed, not the whole of the contract receipts. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is factually as well as legally correct in estimating the profits embedded in the undisclosed contract receipts @8.85% as the appellant had disclosed the profit on the disclosed contract receipts @8.85% which was not disputed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.02.2014 40000 13.02.2014 500000 17.02.2014 600000 25.02.2014 790000 ICICI Bank Limited 197101000007 02.04.2013 49999 10.04.2013 150000 15.04.2013 261000 17.04.2013 150000 22.04.2013 500000 ' 02.05.2013 380000 08.05.2013 249500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20000 05.12.2013 300000 09.12.2013 23500 09.12.2013 1500 21.12.2013 150000 16.01.2014 200000 27.01.2014 50000 19.03.2014 600000 25.03.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed submissions of the assessee partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after observing as under :- 3. I have considered the matter. In the return filed in ITR-4S, the assessee has shown the gross receipt at ₹ 48,41,265/-. The assessee is involved in executing private contract works and the entire receipt on account of contract business appears to be in cash. Hence, it is reasonable to presume that out of the total cash deposits of ₹ 1,29,44,999/-, an amount of ₹ 48,41,265/- would have come from the disclosed contract business. This leaves the balance cash deposits of ₹ 81,03,734/- as apparently unexplained. To consider the entire amount of cash deposits of ₹ 81,03,734/- as unexplained investment u/s.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-(8.85% of ₹ 81,03,734). Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 1,29,44,999/- is reduced to ₹ 7,17,180/-. 6. From the above order of CIT(A), the Revenue aggrieved from the deletion of addition, whereas the assessee has filed cross objection challenging on the legal issue holding that there was no proper service of notice by the jurisdictional assessing officer and he also filed cross objection for sustaining the deletion of addition of ₹ 7,17,180/- by the CIT(A). 7. Since the assessee has filed cross objection, therefore, we proceed to decide first the cross objection of the assessee. 8. At the outset, ld. AR did not press the legal issue raised by him and requested that for taxing on the profit calculated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
