TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We direct the A.O. to adopt estimation at 8% on gross receipts for the assessment year 2008-09 as well as 2009-10 also. Treatment of interest receipts on FDRs as ‘income from other sources’ - CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee, he has treated it as a business income - Held that:- The assessee is not able to substantiate before us to show that the deposits made by the assessee are for the purpose of business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest income received by the assessee from the bank deposits is income from business. Therefore, we hold that interest received by the assessee is ‘income from other sources’ and we accordingly reverse the order of the CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the business of executing civil contracts, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 by admitting total income of ₹ 57,83,290/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and after following the due procedure, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has noted that the assessee was asked to file information in respect of details of expenditure such as books of accounts, bills, vouchers and purchase of different material and other information. In response to that, assessee has filed details. On verification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the A.R. of the assessee relied on the case of DCIT Vs. M. Rama Rao in ITA No.184/Vizag/2010 dated 27.12.2010 of ITAT Vizag Bench and submitted that the addition made by the A.O. may be reduced. The Ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee, he has observed that the book results adopted by the assessee is too low. But at the same time, estimation adopted by the A.O. is too high and A.O. has not given cogent reasons as to why such a percentage was adopted. By following the order of Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of M. Rama Rao (supra) the CIT(A) directed the A.O. to adopt 6.5% on the gross receipts. 3. On being aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee, he has treated it as a business income. The assessee is not able to substantiate before us to show that the deposits made by the assessee are for the purpose of business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest income received by the assessee from the bank deposits is income from business. Therefore, we hold that interest received by the assessee is income from other sources and we accordingly reverse the order of the CIT(A). 6. In view of our decision in the assessment year 2008-09, the year under consideration i.e. 2009-10, interest income is treated as an income from other sources. 7. The ground raised by the department in respect of Seigniorage Sales Tax relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to double addition which is not permitted by law. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the explanation of the assessee, he has observed that once the income is estimated, no other addition is permissible on the basis of rejected books and as such the impugned addition made by the A.O. is set aside and allowed the claim of the assessee. We find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the CIT(A). This ground of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed. 8. So far as cross appeals filed by the assessee is concerned, in view of our decision above for assessment years 2008-09 2009-10, the Cross appeals become infructuous and are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2008-09 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
