TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. We direct the Assessing Officer to apply the net profit rate of 6% to work out the income of the assessee. Accordingly, upholding the rejection of books of account, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the income in the hands of the assessee. - ITA No.1109/Chd/2011 - - - Dated:- 29-2-2012 - Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Sureshs Gupta Respondent by: Shri Akhilesh Gupta, DR ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Karnal dated 17.08.2011 relating to assessment year 2008-09 against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H)]. Accordingly, the income of the assessee was recomputed by the Assessing Officer by applying net profit rate of 12%. 4. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in view of the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT, Hisar Vs. Parbhat Kumar, Contractor, Sirsa (supra). 5. The assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid rejection of books of account and application of net profit rate to the receipts shown by the assessee. 6. Shri Suresh Gupta appeared for the assessee and Shri Akhilesh Gupta appeared for the Revenue and put forward their contentions. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee is carrying out the work of civil construction awarded by the Unive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08% to the gross receipts of ₹ 3.22 crores in comparison to net profit rate of 6.5% to the total receipts applied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) during the year under consideration had rejected the claim of the assessee in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. M/s Prabhat Kumar Contractor (supra) wherein the rate of profit @ 12% was applied by the Hon ble Court. 11. The assessee is a road contractor and not civil contractor as in the case before the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court. The assessee had disclosed the income for the year under consideration at net profit rate of 1.20% and the Assessing Officer for computing the income of the year had applied net profit rate of 6.5%. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view thereof, we hold that in the present set of facts and circumstances where the assessee was engaged in petty civil construction work, where even cement and steel was supplied by the University of Kurukshetra, there is no merit in applying net profit rate of 12% to determine the income of the assessee for the year under appeal. The assessee had declared net profit rate of 4.5% for the year under appeal. We direct the Assessing Officer to apply the net profit rate of 6% to work out the income of the assessee. Accordingly, upholding the rejection of books of account, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the income in the hands of the assessee. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is thus partly allowed. 9. The issue in ground No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
