9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and CO Nos.286 & 287/Ahd/2011 (By Assessee ) respectively pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2005-06. Both the appeals and the cross-objections were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Revenue's quantum appeal in ITA No.2695/Ahd/2011 for AY 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in directing to estimate the income of the appellant by applying the profit rate of 8% on the W.I.P. of Rs. 9,42,319/- instead of profit rate adopted @ 1% by the Assessing Officer. 2) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finding of the AO. 3.1. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however written submission dated 23/03/15 has been filed. 4. We have heard the ld.Sr.DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO has applied 15% of the contract receipts. However, the ld.CIT(A) has restricted the same to 8%. The AO has not given any finding as to what basis of 15% of contract receipts was taken as the profit. The ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- "3.3. Decision: I have carefully perused the assessment order and the submission filed by the ld.AR of the appellant. The A.O. has rightly held that the income from the construction activity should be taxable in the present yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are general in nature which require no independent adjudication. 6. As a result, Revenue's quantum appeal in ITA No.2695/Ahd/2011 for AY 2005-06 is dismissed. ITA Nos.2695 & 2696/Ahd/2011 (By Revenue) and CO Nos.286 & 287/Ahd/2011 (By Assessee ) respectively 7. Now, coming to the assessee's cross-objection No.286/Ahd/2011 for AY 2005-06 (in ITA No.2695/Ahd/2011 for AY 2005-06). The assessee has raised the following grounds in its cross-objection:- 1. That the tax effect is less that threshold limit of Rs. 3.00 Lacs, and as such the appeal filed by the Department be dismissed in limine in view of Board's Circular. WITHOUT PREJDUICE: 2. That the learned CIT(A)-XIV has grievously erred both in law and on the facts of the case in directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee remained present during the course of hearing of the cross-objection. Therefore, the other grounds are rejected for want of proper prosecution. As a result, assessee's cross-objection No.286/Ahd/2011 for AY 2005-06 is dismissed. 8. Now, coming to the Revenue's penalty appeal, i.e. ITA No.2696/Ahd/2011 for AY 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3) It is therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. In my opinion the appellant had given all the particulars regarding the claim in the return of income and the accounts were also presented before the assessing officer. It was his bonafide belief that the he has not earned any income from the activity. The assessing officer did not accept his claim. The addition made by the assessing officer on the basis of estimate does not make the case fit for imposition of penalty. The appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars or misrepresented any fact in his return of income. He furnished the return giving all the facts. Therefore, there is no ITA Nos.2695 & 2696/Ahd/2011 (By Revenue) and CO Nos.286 & 287/Ahd/2011 (By Assessee ) respectively furnishing of inaccurate particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted the explanation of the appellant holding it not acceptable and further the explanation offered by the appellant is bonafide, therefore penalty order cancelled by ld.CIT(A) is fully justified. 2. That the income of the appellant is assessed by A.O. by applying section 145(3) on estimated basis and as such penalty order ITA Nos.2695 & 2696/Ahd/2011 (By Revenue) and CO Nos.286 & 287/Ahd/2011 (By Assessee ) respectively passed by ld.AO U/s.271(1)(c) and cancelled by ld.CIT(A) is fully justified. 3. That the appellant has furnished all the details along with return of income for its claim and which has not been accepted does not tantamount to concealment of income and therefore penalty order imposing penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- cancelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
