9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y with precision as to what are self made vouchers which could not be subjected to verification and their magnitude/quantification. The authorities below have not pin pointed the said self made cash vouchers and their quantification/identification, which were not supported by evidences and which remained unverifiable. The turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration was Rs. 4,00,48,401/- while in the assessment year 2008-09, the turnover was Rs. 4,16,02,496/-. Thus, the turnover in this year is merely 4% lower than the turnover for the assessment year 2008-09, which is negligible difference, and Respectfully following the decision of ITAT for the assessment year 2008-09 and with a view to end this protracted litigation, confirm the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee keeping in view that the assessee has produced self made vouchers/bills before the authorities below which were not verifiable, and this finding could not be unsettled by the assessee even before ITAT by producing bills/vouchers and its verification, no doubt, it is true that the assessee produced books of account, tax audit report before the authorities below. The assessee has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming an addition on account of interest to the tune of Rs 73972/-received from JSPL without properly going through the merits of the case and without appreciating the fact that the same was already included in the total income of the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 31,10,060/-. The return of income was processed by the Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) read with Section 143(3). Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Shakti Construction, and derives business income from contract work, income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. The books of accounts were produced by the assessee before the AO during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om JSPL by including the same separately as income under the head 'income from other sources' 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with the ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with respect to chargeability of profit of 8% by rejecting the contentions of the assessee. There was one more addition, inter-alia, which was upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals) with respect to addition of Rs. 73,972/- as interest income from JSPL as income from other sources. The assessee submitted that the same is included in the business income and has been taxed under the head profit and gain from business or profession. CIT(Appeals) observed that there is no double addition on account of interest income of Rs. 73,972/-, as the said income was shown as income from business, and was not separately added by the assessee to the income from other sources while the Assessing Officer has only applied profit rate of 8% on the gross contract receipts. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed second appeal with the Tribunal. The assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal is stated to have expired, and appeal is filed by the legal heir Smt. Bharti Bansal, who is wife of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of section 44AD. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the said profit rate of 8% should be sustained. Learned CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. I have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. I have observed that the assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal has filed return of income on 31.10.2010 declaring income of Rs. 31,10,060/-. The return of income was processed by Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) read with Section 143(3). Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. I have observed that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Shakti Construction and derives business income from contract work, income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. Books of accounts of the assessee were produced which were verified by the Assessing Officer on test check basis.. I have observed that the assessee has expired and appeal is filed by the legal heir Smt. Bharti Bansal, wife of the assessee. The Revenue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their magnitude/quantification. The authorities below have not pin pointed the said self made cash vouchers and their quantification/identification, which were not supported by evidences and which remained unverifiable. The assessee has stated that all these self made vouchers were duly receipted by the recipients. If the recipients were identifiable, then it was incumbent on the authorities below to have made enquiries with the recipients to unravel truth. The authorities below has dealt with the matter in a very casual manner, and such lack luster and casual approach can never be appreciated, more so the assessee has to face the ordeal dealing with lengthy and expensive litigation running into several years. In the instant case, the case of the assessee was selected for framing scrutiny assessment in 2011 while assessment was framed in 2013 i.e. more than 10-11 years have now passed and litigation is still continuing. The assessee is also equally responsible for its woes, as it has not made any attempt to controvert/dislodge the findings of the AO. No doubt, the assessee has shown higher profit during the year under consideration vis a vis profit in assessment year 2008-09, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting surplus fund, on which interest of Rs. 73,972/- was earned. After arriving at the conclusive finding as aforesaid, the Assessing Officer shall accordingly bring to tax the said income. If it is surplus fund, the same shall be taxed separately, while if it is earned from the funds deployed for commercial/business exigency, then the same be treated as business income. Onus is on the assessee to prove commercial expediency and or business requirement to invest funds with JSPL, on which interest income is earned. Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh after arriving at the findings as aforesaid. The AO shall also keep in view our decision in this order in sustaining only the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against bringing to tax business income computed @8% on the gross turnover by the AO and as sustained by ld. CIT(A). The AO shall also see that the same income should not suffer taxation twice, which is the fundamental principle of the taxing statute. I order accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
