9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire additions liable to be deleted in full. 16. The authorities below have failed in appreciating the fact that the Income Tax Act itself has fixed the higher turnover limits for declaring income under presumptive basis under section 44AD for subsequent years, the turn over achieved by the assessee is much lesser than the revised limit fixed by the Income Tax Act from the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The learned Authorities below erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee was entitled to offer the income under presumptive basis u/s. 44AD for the civil contracts business carried out by him. 18. The learned Authorities below erred in disallowing the expenses merely relying on the cash withdrawals and without calling of any information on the beneficiaries for the expenses incurred, merely on surmise and conjunctures that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 40A (3) of the Act. 19. The learned Authorities below erred in adding back a sum of Rs. 55,66,121/- under the premise that the cash withdrawals are spend for payment of expenses which is disallowable u/s. 40A (3) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the withdrawn amounts are paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect from 15.03.2020. We have considered this matter and have taken the materials on record to admit the grounds filed for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court suo moto writ petition No. 03/2020 along with M.P 21/2022 has held that the period from 15/3/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of period of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of quasi judicial and judicial proceedings. The period of delay in assessee's case is covered by the exclusion of period of limitation as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence we hold that there is no delay to be condoned in filing these appeals and the appeals are deemed to be filed in time for further adjudication. The Brief facts of the case: 4. The assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 on 06.02.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,99,270 under the head 'Profits and Gains from Business or Profession'. The assessee is a civil contractor and entered into a civil work contract with DEC Infrastructure and Projects India Limited. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing the deduction for the balance amount of Rs. 61,54,294. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is a small time contractor and his turnover for earlier and subsequent assessment years to the year under consideration are below Rs. 1 crore. So, the assessee was under a bonafide belief that he was not required to maintain books of account and hence did not do so. The learned AR also submitted the decision of the CIT(A) to consider the profit at more than 40% is not in accordance with any law. The learned AR further submitted that the CIT(A) ought not to have assumed the cash withdrawals as expenditure to be disallowed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without any evidence to support the claim therefore is against the principles of natural justice. 8. The learned Departmental Representative supported the decision of the lower authorities. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. There is no dispute that the assessee's has earned a revenue of Rs. 1,32,51,267 as contract receipts and this fact is also supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid position, we wanted the counsel for the Revenue to ascertain the gross profit or net profit rates declared and accepted by the Assessing Officer in case of other contractors engaged in similar work. We wanted ascertainment of this aspect as the counsel for the Revenue had submitted that net profit @ 8% was inadequate and low and a higher profit rate should be attributed. By order dated 19.08.2014, counsel for revenue was required to ascertain the said aspect. It is stated at Bar that the Assessing Officer has not given any comments in this regard. Noticeably, counsel for the assessee had earlier produced before us a copy of the assessment order relating to assessment year 2010-11, wherein the Assessing Officer himself had applied net profit rate of 8% on contractual receipt of Rs. 6.66 crores and net profit rate of 3% on supply receipts of Rs. 7.21 crores. As per the said order, the total receipts were to the tune of about Rs. 14 crores. In the present assessment year the total turnover of the assessee was about Rs. 18 crores. In these circumstances we are not inclined to accept the prayer of the counsel for the Revenue that an order of remand may be passed. The Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
