TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her sources' - HELD THAT:- There is hardly any dispute that such scrap sales emanates in the ordinary course of civil constructions and contractor business amounts to business income as per DCIT Vs.Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri [ 1999 (12) TMI 5 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and M/s.J.V.K. Infra Pvt. Ltd. [ 2018 (6) TMI 545 - ITAT HYDERABAD] holding the very view. CIT-DR further fails to dispute clinching fact that the assessee s books have indicated the impugned receipts from scrap sales than any other source inviting application of Section 57 of the Act. We conclude in this factual backdrop that the assessee s scrap sales income deserves to be treated under the regular business head followed by assessment thereof @8%. Un-explained cash credits - HELD THAT:- We come to the first investor party herein, assessee s Managing Director Shri M.Venkatesh, who has duly filed his confirmation and all supportive documents. He continues to be assessed in the same range jurisdiction as well. Hon'ble Gujarat high court decision in PCIT Vs. Gyscoal Alloys Ltd.. [ 2018 (10) TMI 1725 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] holds that the impugned section 68 addition on explained cash credits involving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., Vs., CIT [229 ITR 383] (SC) considered in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2012) [137 ITD 217](SB) (Mumbai) that any of the party(ies) in Section 254 proceedings could raise an additional ground so as to determine the correct tax liability of a taxpayer provided that all the relevant facts form part of records. We further notice that the revenue authorities have already filed their remand reports dt.25-07-2018 and 19-11-2018 to assessee s additional submissions as well. We thus accept the assessee s foregoing petition seeking to raise its additional grounds in both these assessment years. Now comes our issue-wise detailed adjudication on merits. 4. The assessee s first identical substantive grievance in both these appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action estimating 8% profit element of its gross contractual receipts followed by an ancillary issue in latter substantive grounds qua treatment on scrap sales income under the head business / an other sources. We note that the assessee s scrap sales income read assessment year-wise sums ₹ 23,71,836/- and ₹ 7,13,373/-; respectively. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antiation thereof by way of filing of cogent evidence. There is hardly any dispute that such scrap sales emanates in the ordinary course of civil constructions and contractor business amounts to business income as per DCIT Vs.Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri 258 ITR 785 (Gujarat) and ITA No.1404/Hyd/2017 M/s.J.V.K. Infra Pvt. Ltd. holding the very view. 8. Learned CIT-DR further fails to dispute clinching fact that the assessee s books have indicated the impugned receipts from scrap sales than any other source inviting application of Section 57 of the Act. We conclude in this factual backdrop that the assessee s scrap sales income of ₹ 23,71,836/- deserves to be treated under the regular business head followed by assessment thereof @8%. We order accordingly. The Assessee s substantive ground Nos.3 to 6 and 14 to 16 in AY.2010-11 ITA No.1766/Hyd/2017 are partly accepted in above terms. 8.1. Same order to follow in assessee s corresponding ground Nos.3 to 7 and additional ground No.41 in AY.2011-12 involving contractual, sub-contractual and scrap receipts of ₹ 5,02,19,281/-, ₹ 36,55,40,382/- and ₹ 7,13,373/-; respectively in absence of any distinction of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived through banking channel. The same are duly reflected in the annual accounts of that company. The extracts of the bank statement which have been filed before me during the course of appellate proceedings as well as before the AO clearly show that there are no cash deposits as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. The observation of the AO that the cash has been deposited and subsequently cheques were issued is factually incorrect. The director of the company also attended before AO and confirmed the fact. It is also noted that both the companies, that is the appellant company as well as the share applicant are managed by the same group of persons. Honourable High Court of Gujarat has consistently held that if the assessee has given sufficient proof in respect of the share application, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. If the AO has any doubt about the source of the share applicant further investigation can be made in the hands of the share applicant, but not in the case of the appellant. It can thus be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of material on record. CIT [A] and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vances involving contractual and sub-contractual receipts as well as scrap sales incomes (supra) have already been accepted in part in view of our detailed discussion in AY.2010- 11. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to act accordingly in above terms. 15. Next comes the second issue of assessee s share application money of ₹ 40 lakhs out of ₹ 1 crore treated as unexplained cash credits in the CIT(A) s order. We note that the relevant facts herein are no different than those in AY.2010-11 wherein all these parties have filed confirmations and detailed evidence followed by allotment of shares without involving any cash deposits or withdrawals or any other suspicious circumstances. 16. Ld.CIT-DR s case in tune with the CIT(A) s detailed discussion is that some of the investors herein have failed to prove the impugned sums genuineness. The fact also remains that most of investor parties have made investments of less than ₹ 2 to 5 lakhs which cannot be altogether ruled out as the cash in their hands per se. We thus adopt the very detailed reasoning as in AY.2010-11 to delete the impugned addition of ₹ 40 lakhs. 17. The assessee s next substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
