9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sake of brevity only ground no. 1 is produced as under:- "1. That ld. AO has erred in making addition in net profit by gross receipts of Rs. 24,96.557/- as per Form 26AS (TDS) Reconciliation Statement) Gross work payment as shown in TDS Certificate dt. 22.09.2009 issued by Shri Bhawani Nikean Shiksha Samiti, Sikar Road, Jaipur is of Rs. 5,19,09,588/- whereas the payment as shown in Form 26AS is of Rs. 5,44,06,145/-, thus there is a difference of Rs. 24,96,557/- which is fully added into total income of appellant without giving deduction of expenses thereof. And Further order of ld (CIT(A) as confirming the same is also erroneous which may please be deleted." 2. The assessee is a Civil Contractor and filed its return of income on 02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gross contract receipts as it was stated in Form 16A issued by Shri Bhawani Niketan Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur however, the said Shiksha Samiti subsequently added a sum of Rs. 24,96,557/-. Therefore, a total TDS return and due to this addition the difference of the said amount as appearing in the 26AS and the amount declared by the assessee. The assessee agreed to the addition of net profit rate 9.89% on the said difference amount of gross contract receipts. The AO also received information u/s 133(6) of the Act from detectee Shri Bhawani Niketan Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur wherein it was stated that the payment of Rs. 24,96,557/- was made to the assessee on account of contract work. These facts were brought to the notice of the assessee and in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 24,96,557/- were debited in the books of accounts. The ld. CIT(A) has examined the relevant records and found that the claim and explanation of the assessee is contrary to the stand taken before the AO as well as it is not correct as the assessee has already claimed all these expenses in the profit and loss account. 3. Before Tribunal, ld. AR of the assessee has reiterated its contention that the gross contract receipts cannot be added to the income of the assessee and at the most profit element in the gross contract receipts can be added. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:- * Shri Hamid Khan vs. ITO 158 TTJ 0039 * CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 * Ram Kishan vs. ITO & vice Versa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per Form 26AS the contract receipts appearing at Rs. 5,44,06,145/- When this discrepancy of Rs. 24,96,557/- of contract receipt was pointed out by the AO, the assessee explained that the corresponding expenses has not been claimed by the assessee and therefore, only the net profit on these differential amount of contract receipts can be added to the income of the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee explained that the difference of Rs. 24,96,557/- is due to book adjustment entry made by the deductee. The relevant part of the submissions of the assessee in para 3.1 as under:- 3.1 Submissions made by the appellant 1. That the appellant is a works contractor and has undertaken the Civil Construction work of Building of Shri Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which were audited by an auditor. (xi) It is noted from the copy of 'Construction Expenses Direct Payment to Suppliers' ledger account filed by the appellant along with the appeal that total expenses of Rs. 92,77,652/- were debited into said account which includes amount of Rs. 4,24,000/- and Rs. 4,16,000/- debited on 01.10.2008 and 3.11.2008 respectively and this expenditure of Rs. 92,77,652/- is a part of total purchase of Rs. 2,96,16,898/- of the appellant debited to its Profit and Loss account. It is pertinent to mention here that these payments were claimed to be made by the Awarder to the supplier i.e. M/s Binani Cement. This means that the appellant has already claimed the expenditure on account of direct purchase of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant at the assessment and appellate proceedings and as the appellant has not come with clean hands before the appellate authority. (xv) Hence, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 24,96,557/- as undisclosed contract receipts and thus the same is sustained. Hence, these grounds of appeal are hereby rejected." Thus, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has analyzed the relevant record and found that the claim of the assessee is not correct as all these expenses on account of direct purchase and sales tax deduction and interest have already been taken under consideration while preparing the profit and loss account. Therefore, once the claim of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
