TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Gupta And Rajesh Bindal, JJ. For the Appellant: Akshay Bhan For the Respondent : None. JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 464 of 2008 and 169 of 2008 in respect of the assessment year 2000-01 and assessment year 1999-2000, arising out of the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 381/Chandi./2004 and ITA No. 380/Chandi./2004, respectively. Since, the issues raised are similar, therefore, for facility of reference facts are taken from ITA No. 464 of 2008. 2. The assessee is a contractor undertaking the construction work on contract. The assessee submitted a return for the assessment year 2000-01 declaring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flat rate prescribed for determination of income is 8 per cent of gross receipts paid or payable to the appellant provided these receipts do not exceed ₹ 40,00,000. However, in case of a contractor, whose gross receipts are exceeding ₹ 40 lakhs, it was found that such assessee must produce necessary evidence to prove that he has suffered loss or income other than 8 per cent estimate of income. The relevant extract from the order passed by the CIT(A) reads as under :- 5.34 However, special provisions were incorporated under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of quantification of income about civil construction contractors. The minimum flat rate prescribed for determination of income is 8 per cent of gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared by appellant at the rate of 12 per cent. The Assessing Officer directed to tax gross receipts at the rate of 12 per cent flat rate in absence of books of account as declared by the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) also allowed the interest and salary paid to the partners as per the partnership deed and addition on these account were ordered to be deleted. The CIT(A) also set aside the addition of ₹ 47,73,781 under section 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved against the decision of the CIT(A), the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and also rejected the argument raised by the assessee in respect of allowing depreciation claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll further, the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the appellant has not submitted copies of the bills of the assets purchased by him, nor produced any evidence to prove that these assets were put to use for the purpose of the business during the year under consideration, was also not challenged before the CIT(A). Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any ground taken before the CIT(A) disputing the said finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the claim of depreciation sought to be raised by the appellant before this Court is on the basis of non-existent facts. Even otherwise, we do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the profit assessed on the gross receipts is arrived at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
