9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot file the appeal in time. 3. Shri A.V. Raghuraman, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee carried on civil contract work for the Indian railways. During the relevant period, the assessee's office received the impugned Appellate Order on 21.1.2009. However, the assessee was away from Hyderabad, in connection with execution of the contract work for the Indian Railways. Therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal in time. According to the learned counsel, there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. On the contrary, Shri H. Phani Raju, the learned departmental representative has submitted that the delay is about 53 days. If it is 5 or 10 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year under consideration is the very first year of the assessee's firm. According to the learned counsel, the assessee firm has just started its business. Two of the partners introduced capital for the purpose of carrying out the business of the firm. Both the partners subsequently retired. According to the learned counsel, since the assessee has started its business during the year under consideration, there cannot be sufficient income for making undisclosed investment in the form of capital. Referring to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Bharat Engineering and Construction Company 83 ITR 187 (SC) the learned counsel submitted that the assessee firm could not have earned so much of amount for the purpose of int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Beerelli Damodar, Kothagudem Vs. ITO in ITA No.1648/H/2008 dated 9/4/2010 and submitted that this Tribunal after following the judgement of the Calcutta High Court on identical circumstances confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer in the very first year. Therefore, merely because it was the first year of the business, the assessee cannot say that there was no undisclosed investments of the funds. 8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The only contention of the assessee's counsel is that the assessee firm was established during the assessment year under consideration and the business was just started there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineering and Construction Company (supra), may not be of any assistance to the assessee. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal elaborately considered this issue and found that in the absence of any explanation, addition may be sustained u/s 68 of the IT Act, even though the assessment year is the very first year. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the assessee's counsel. Accordingly we confirm the order of the CIT(A). 9. The assessee has taken one more ground regarding estimation of profit at 8% of the gross receipt. No arguments are advanced from both the sides. After going through the order of the Lower Authority, we found that the estimation of profit at 8% is very reasonable, therefore, no i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
