TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Kolkata dated 09.11.2012. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-6 Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide his order dated 30.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10. Revenue raised the following effective grounds which reproduced below:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing that profit be estimated @ 8% (eight percent) of Gross Receipts particularly in view of the facts that: i) The books of A/c were not rejected by the AO. ii) That external verification proves that purchase were inflated hence there is no scope of estimation. iii) The turnover of the assessee is much more than 40 lakhs as mandated in 44AD. Shri Pramod Kumar Himmat Singhka, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, Ld. Department Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue. 2. Common issue raised by assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the profit @ 8% of gross receipts. 2.1 Facts in brief are that assessee is a Private Limited Company and engaged in business of civil contract. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31 Tripura Small Enterprise 16 Tirupati Sales Corporation 32 Vivekananda Trade Centre During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the aforesaid parties for verifying the transactions with assessee. The AO found that there was lot of mismatched in the figure of purchase shown by assessee and the reply receipt from the parties in response to u/s 133(6) of the Act. The difference between claim of assessee and reply receipt from the concern party can be summarized as under:- (i) Purchase claimed by assessee and sale declared by party in its books of account; (ii) Reply receipt from the party in response to notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were not genuine so the purchase claimed by the assessee was not genuine; (iii) In many cases, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were returned unserved; (iv) In many cases, notices u/s 133(6) were delivered to the respective parties but no reply was received; Besides, AO also observed assessee could not furnish in many cases, the stock register, purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome on estimate basis @ 8% of the gross receipt without rejecting the books of account of assessee and vehemently relied on the order of AO. On the other hand, Ld. AR filed a paper book which is running from pages 1 to 76 and submitted that for the year under consideration the name of the assessee company was changed from Evershine Exports Vanijya Limited to Sikaria Infraprojects (P) Ltd. Therefore many suppliers could not understand the case and failed to file correct reply. The assessee also submitted that there are various listed companies in the identical business and their profit for the year under consideration does not exceed more than 8%. The sufficient time was not given by the AO to the assessee for making the reply to the queries raised. The assessee received the notice for hearing on dated 26th November for the appearance on 27th November. And finally the AO passed the order on dated 30.12.2011. The ld. AR also submitted that Government of India also provides the abatement of 67% for the material component for charging the service tax in the case of civil contracts. The assessee agreed for the addition of income @ 8 % of the gross turnover to buy the peace of mind. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een held that in the AY 2001-02, the assessee is engaged in civil contract business with others business segments. AO estimated net income from the work contract @ 10% on the gross contract receipts. Assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence for purchase and other expenses. Purchase expenses not confirmed on an enquiry conducted by the AO u/s. 133(6). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Tribunal relied on the decision of Hon ble Orissa High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Nandaram Hunda Ram (1976) 103 ITR 433, wherein it is held that if the assessee failed to produce acceptable accounts revenue would be on the decision of Royal medial Hall vs. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 748 (AP) wherein it is held that estimate of income on the basis of materials available and the past assessment record was held proper and Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the income by applying 6% of net profit on gross contract receipts. 4. In the case of Pravin Pandurang Patil, Islampur in ITA No. 850/PN/08 it has been held that in the AY 2005-06, the assessee is engaged in civil contract business with others business segments. AO rejected the books of account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
