TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order that the assessee’s net profit rate is @ 2.82% as against 1.43% and 2.0% in assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09; respectively. As held in CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic & Ors [1998 (8) TMI 43 - GUJARAT High Court] that section 145 is not to be invoked for rejecting an assessee’s books in absence of any material brought on record to establish that relevant purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed or that the tax payer concerned had not followed the regular method of accounting. It has further come on record that the CIT(A) has still upheld the impugned addition on merits to a lump-sum figure of ₹ 5,00,000/- despite upholding assessee’s books of accounts. No reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s above extracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rresponding gross receipts of ₹ 13,10,03,194/-, ₹ 5,76,87,048/- and ₹ 55,99,130/- in latter appeal; respectively, to a lumpsum amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- each in the two assessment years in question. We thus treat former appeal ITA No.367/Rjt/2014 as the lead case. The assessee s cross-objection in latter assessment year 2010-11 on the other hand seeks to challenge the CIT(A) s action restricting the above addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- only in lower appellate proceedings. 3. We now advert to the relevant basic facts. There is no dispute that this assessee is a firm engaged in civil construction business. It filed its return in former assessment year 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at ₹ 98,55,046/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts the above three additions on merits to cumulating sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- only as under:- 5. I have perused the written submission of the AR as also the assessment order. It is seen from the assessment order (para 3.) that, the books were rejected as the appellant had not maintained quantitative details, WIP was on estimate basis, substantial work was done through sub contracts, there is no sub contracts agreements, there were substantial transactions with persons related in terms of section 40A(2)(b) and log book for vehicle is not maintained. However, none of the above reasons for rejections were specific in nature, in as much as, the AO failed to hold which transactions were covered u/s. 40A(2)(b) and to how much extent they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of 8%. However, again the AO failed to bring any specific instance on record. No comparative cases were cited or compared. Merely because section 44AD prescribes mandatory 8% GP on gross receipts, does not translate into such income in the hands of the appellant, particularly when no specific instance has been quoted. Therefore, in the absence of any details to support the finding of the AO, the estimation appears to be on the higher side. 6.1 Further, by estimating profit at 5% on sub-let works and estimating the income from sale of black metal, the AO has not brought forth any specific instance. The provisions of Income tax Act are ruled by facts and not by surmises. Unless there is specific instance that the appellant had e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks on a variety of reasons as narrated in the preceding paragraphs. We have perused the Assessing Officer s finding in assessment order qua this effect. There is not even a single specific instance quoted in assessee s books indicating the above stated irregularities. We afforded ample opportunities to learned departmental representative to refer to any findings on record which could indicate that the same suffered from all the said specific shortcomings. There is no such material referred before us in support of assessment findings. It thus turns out to be a case wherein learned Assessing Officer proceeded to reject assessee s books of accounts without even dealing with all the specified parameters disclosed therein. We further find in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
