TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t two grounds of appeal are as under :- That the authorities below erred on facts and in law in rejecting the books of account maintained as per the method regularly employed through aut and ignoring the past history and without pointing out any defects in the accounts or the method employed. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the rate of profit @ 11% against the rate applied 12.5% by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Gwalior, after considering the position w.r.t. assessment year 1988-89 as well as 1989-90, whereas in the year 1988-89 and 1989-90 rate was 10.45% and 7.57% respectively before allowing the interests and depreciation. Accordingly the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, considering the arguments of the assessee that new contract was taken and only contract work was completed and the cost of index for labourers and prices having gone up, he reduced the rate from 12.5% to 11%. 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel to the assessee did not emphasis about the rejection of books of account. However, more emphasis were given on the past history of the case. He filed paper book and on page 1 of the paper book, it was shown that gross profit for assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 @ 9.84%, 7.6% and 10% respectively before depreciation and interest. 2.4 But we noted that the year under consideration cannot be compared with the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 for the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before depreciation which is very low, therefore, we hold that for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order about the defects in the books of account, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 145. Further, having regard to the judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Saraya Engg. Works, 158 ITR 455, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and thus, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Appeal No. 2955/Del./95 3.1 The grounds of appeal are as under :- That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law in upholding the penalty of ₹ 40,000 levied by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s levied under section 271D of the Income-tax Act. 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel to the assessee filed paper book containing 28 pages. At page 22, there is account of Shri Suresh Chand Goyal in the books of the firm M/s. Kushwaha Kushwaha Co. wherein it has been mentioned that ₹ 30,000 and ₹ 10,000 were given by Cheque No. 030199 on 25-4-1989 and No. 030915 on 31-5-1989 respectively. At page 18 to 21, there is photocopy of the bank pass book of Shri Suresh Chand Goyal wherein it is seen that on 26-4-1989, the amount of ₹ 30,000 was deposited by cheque which was withdrawn on 27-4-1989 in cash and on 24-5-1989, the amount of ₹ 10,000 was deposited by cheque, which was withdrawn in cash on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is doubtful. The amount claimed as routed through the partner Shri Suresh Chand Goyal does not prove by the books of account of the assessee firm as the assessee-firm s books of account indicate that the amount of ₹ 40,000 in aggregate was received through partner-Shri Suresh Chand Goyal. It is further interesting to note that the account of M/s. Kushwaha Kushwaha Co. has been squared up by assessee-firm by issuing cheque No 494344, dated 11-10-1989 of ₹ 40,000 and debited account of M/s. Kushwaha Kushwaha Co. This amount has directly been credited in account of Shri Suresh Chand Goyal by M/s. Kushwaha Kushwaha Co. and further given note in the ledger folio through Goyal Construction and it has not routed through the Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
