TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ets. It would, therefore, show that these purchases have been shown in the books of account and have specifically shown in the audited accounts. Therefore, the nature and source of the same have been explained by the assessee and as such could not be treated as unexplained investment made in the purchase of fixed assets. Therefore, no addition could be made u/s. 68. May be, for nonproduction of bills for assets purchased, the AO could have disallowed the depreciation but such an issue is not relevant to the addition made u/s. 68 Disallowance of provision of expenditure made, salary and wages, purchase and other Misc. expenses - Held that:- Instead of making huge additions on account of disallowance, out of various expenses under the four heads as above, it would be reasonable and appropriate to make addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- in all to the income of the assessee to meet out the ends of justice and objections of the authorities below. In view of the above discussion, we modify the orders of the authorities below and instead of making addition on account of disallowance of various expenses in a sum of ₹ 29,60,560/-, ₹ 40,92,568/-, ₹ 29,72,852/- and ₹ 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and written submission of the assessee is reproduced in the appellate order, in which the assessee briefly explained that the above additions/disallowances have been made without considering the past history and the decisions of appellate authority in assessee s own cases. The assessee declared net profit at 5.6% and after making these additions, same would be at 22.56% of the gross contract receipts. It was submitted that the best judgment assessment must be completed honestly and judiciously on the material available on record. The AO made estimated disallowances/additions. In the assessment year 2009-10, ITAT, Agra Bench accepted the net profit rate of 4.16% shown by the assessee and made addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- for non-availability of vouchers/bills etc. The assessee also relied upon several decisions that on same set of facts, additions are wholly unjustified and principles of consistency should have been adopted by the authorities below. It was further explained that in preceding assessment years 2002-03 to assessment year 2006-07, only part additions have been maintained in a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- each. 4. The learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is devoid of merit. It is well settled law that addition on account of unexplained cash credit shall have to be separately made even if profit rate has been applied for computing the business income of the assessee. We rely on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 and CIT vs. Devi Prasd Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is accordingly rejected. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted the details of sundry creditors in the paper book at page 1 to show that in assessment year 2008-09, sundry creditors were of ₹ 90.28 lacs which is reduced to ₹ 29.34 lacs in the assessment year 2009-10 and in assessment year 2010-11, the sundry creditors are of ₹ 32,73,524/-. He has, therefore, submitted that sundry creditors have reduced from assessment year 2008-09 and this fact has not been examined by the AO. Therefore, the entire addition is wholly unjustified. The ld. DR also contended that this fact can be examined at the stage of AO. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heads, on which disallowance have been made by the AO mainly on account of non-production of bills and vouchers for payment of these expenditure. The assessee has filed comparative chart of history of the assessee to show that percentage of purchase with gross receipts of the contract are lesser in the assessment year under appeal as compared to the preceding assessment year 2009-10. In assessment year 2009-10, the AO rejected books of accounts of the assessee and applied net profit rate of 12.5% which have been reduced by the ld. CIT(A) to 6%. The ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of same assessee for the assessment year 2009-10, in ITA No. 359/Agra/2012 and 389/Agra/2012 vide order dated 29.01.2013 directed to make addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- in all considering the history of the assessee and following earlier years order of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee. Para 4 of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : 4. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of the same assessee in preceding assessment years referred to above. The assessee is doing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
