9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O and in doing so the CIT(A) order is enormous. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has error in deleting addition of Rs. 53,22,625/- made by the AO on account of suppression of receipts by the assessee despite the assessee being unable to provide any explanation despite being given opportunity to do so. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is in error in failing to appreciate that suppression of receipts is an infraction of the law that can be penalized and as such cannot be clubbed with any other issue as done by him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a contractor and has declared gross contract receipts at Rs. 8,37,13,833/- which is equal 3.81% of the total turnover after accounting for appropriation of salary and interest to partners. The net pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depreciation and further hold that no separate addition is called for on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act in the contract receipts of 57,85,462/- which was not disclosed by the assessee, however, detected by the AO. Further deleting the addition of interest income to the tune of Rs. 1,75,704/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue Authority preferred the instant appeal and in support of its case, the Ld. DR submitted that there was no reason before the Ld. CIT(A) for accepting the estimation of income and disturbing the rate of profit of estimated by the AO. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,22,625/- made by the AO on account of suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of input and labour. The Assessing Officer was under obligation to apply the comparative cases of the similar other asessees in similar business on the similar location, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has considered the case of M/s Shivam Constructions Engineers, Srinagar (ITA No.493(Asr)/2010 dated 01.05.2012) decided by Jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT Bench at Amritsar, in which, the net profit rate was directed to be applied @7% subjected to no further allowances. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in granting relief to the assessee, hence, ground No.1 of the Revenue Department is liable to be dismissed. Now coming to the ground No.2 & 3 with regard to the deletion of addition of Rs. 53,22,625/- made by the AO on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
