9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier or subsequent returns filed by the assessee would not be able to give a true and clear picture of the income of the assessee. In any case, there is only one scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee for the earlier AYs being the AY 2012-13 which resulted in the income of the assessee being a hike up to 3.21%. A perusal of the receipts for the earlier AYs compare to the relevant AY showed an increase in the turnover but for the AYs 2010-11 2011-12, the percentage of income reduced. For the AY 2012-13, the percentage of income increased on account of the addition made in the course of the scrutiny assessment. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the increase in the turnover results the percentage of income should normally increa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... George Mathan, Judicial Member: ITA No. 2879/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue and CO No. 06/Chny/2019 is a Cross-Objection filed by the assessee against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, in ITA No.76/2016-17 dated 31.07.2018 for the AY 2013-14. 2. Shri Amol B. Kirtane, Addl. CIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri G. Baskar, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is an individual who is doing the business of Highway Contractor in Tamil Nadu. It was a submission that the assessee had filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year admitting a total income of ₹ 1,03,49,240/-. The same was taken up for scruti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f details being produced, the AO had followed the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. A.Vajjiram Bros., reported in 326 ITR 551 (Mad) and had made the estimation of 8%. It was a submission that the AO had not adopted Sec.44AD provisions. It was a submission that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed and that of the AO restored. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. 6. A perusal of the Assessment Order in the present case clearly shows that the return was filed on 30.09.2013. The first hearing in the case was conducted on 27.07.2015, subsequently multiple hearings have been conducted on various dates as has been recorded by the AO in Para Nos. 3-7 of his order. As there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income should normally increase, substantially on account of the fact that the fixed cost, if any, remain constant or there would be very minor change in that. The variable cost would admittedly be in proportion to or having some relationship to the increase in the turnover. In the present case, no details have been produced before the Tribunal to substantiate the estimation at a lower figure. Thus, clearly before the AO nor before the Ld. CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal, the assessee is willing to produce any details to substantiate its returned income. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the AO has followed a binding decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Vajjiram Bros., reported in 326 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
