2016 (2) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,228/- made by the learned assessing officer on account of taxi plying, on an estimate basis. ITA No. 138/JP/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) : 1. That the leaned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the rejection of books of account by the learned assessing officer and thereby applying the provisions of section 145(3). 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,47,466/- made by the learned assessing officer, by applying a net profit rate of 9% subject to depreciation. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the separate addition of Rs. 12,24,814/- made by the learned assessing officer on account of interest income. 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the separate addition of Rs. 26,232/- made by the learned assessing officer on account of non business use of cars. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor, derives income from construction work awarded by PWD and other government departments, and also income from interest. The assessee filed his returns of income for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 on 31.10.2007 and 30.09.2009 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the profit and the turnover of the assessee. It was also contended that the books of account have been wrongly rejected by the authorities below, and he has submitted that the assessee has not produced the books of account as were available with him as the assessee has suffered from injuries. Two affidavits were also filed to support the case of the assessee. 4.2. The ld. D/R for the revenue has confronted the argument of the ld. A/R and has submitted that despite various opportunities, the books of accounts have not been produced. He has drawn our attention to the following para at page 9 in the order of ld. CIT (A) :- " The compliance of notice u/s142(1) has been really poor. What is more, the assessee has not been able to produce any bills/vouchers which means that his claim regarding expenses can not be verified. Cash Book has not been produced and Stock Register has also not been produced. Thus, the stock, cash, exp. etc. cannot be verified. The claim of creditors can also, at bet, be partly correct. Though, one thing has been praiseworthy on assessee's part that he did not try to furnish fake books in spite of getting sufficient time. This shown good intention of asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alvad Brothers (2004) 90 TTJ (Ahd.) 193, CIT vs. American Consulting Corporation (1980) 123 ITR 513 (Ori.), Seth Nathuram Munalal vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 216 (Nag.), CIT vs. Gupta, K.N. Construction Co. (2015) 371 ITR 325 (Raj.), CIT vs. M/s. Vaibhav Gems Ltd. (2014 52 Tax World 159 (Raj.), CIT vs. Subodh Gupta (Del) ITA 80/2014, Harban Lal Sethi vs. ACIT (2003) 30 TW 82 etc. are not applicable in the present case on the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the admission of the assessee which has prompted the AO to determine the NP rate and the AO has accepted the NP rate. In none of the judgments referred by ld. A/R for the assessee, the court have concerned with the admission of the assessee, in our view the judgment referred by the assessee are not applicable. 5. Ground no. 3 in both the assessment years relates to separate addition of Rs. 3,53,932/- and Rs. 12,24,814/- on account of interest income from FDRs. 5.1. The AO made the addition taking into consideration that the assessee is not in the business of money lending. The AO was of the view that assessee is a civil contractor and, by any standards, interest on bank FDR is to be assessed as Income from Other Sources....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een assessed as a part of gross contractual receipts. Therefore, rest 16% is being added to assessee's income under this head. Accordingly, further addition of Rs. 15,228/- (16% to Rs. 95,174/-) is hereby made to assessee's income. 7.2. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition by observing that " As assessee has produced no supporting document, the action of Assessing Officer was considered fair and reasonable." 8. Now the assessee is before us. 8.1. The ld. A/R for the assessee has argued that AO has arbitrarily estimated the income from car hiring @ 25%, without giving any reason in support of the estimate. He submitted that when the books of account are rejected, revenue cannot rely on the same set of books and disallow specific items of expenditure. The estimate of income from car hiring made by the AO is based on surmises and conjectures and is not justified on any legally sustainable foundation. Therefore, he prayed that the addition may kindly be deleted. 8.2. The ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below. He requested that the addition be confirmed. 8.3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the AO has not given ....