TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Confirmation of net profit @ 30% being sale of lands at Chavadi - We find that the above estimation of net profit is on higher side. Thus, in the absence of any comparables, we are of the considered opinion that the estimation of net profit @ 15% on sale of the plots would be reasonable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to estimate the net profit @15% towards sale of plots. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. - I.T.A. No.1979/Chny/2016 I.T.A. Nos.1888/Chny/2016 & 153/Chny/2020 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2023 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 2. With regard to the first ground raised in the grounds of appeal in 6.1, no relevant material was brought on record and accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 3. With regard to the deletion of addition to the tune of ₹.2,27,20,347/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that this amount received as advances and retained by the assessee was not refunded to the companies, the detailed facts as emanating from the assessment order are reproduced as under: 2. During the year under consideration the assessee admitted sales of Rs.3,15,500/- from gravel sales and claimed quarry expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,251/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit admitted by the assessee: Profits assessed today along with this order from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2012-13 based on the pro-rata basis and the rates as per agreements with the companies are as below: A.Y. ILFS SRM Good Earth etc. Total 2008-09 1,02,98,000 2,74,12,865 3,77,10,865 2009-10 3,81,97,000 2,58,15,245 (-)1,55,408 6,38,56,837 2010-11 10,20,98,755 2,96,80,000 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee itself and has no intention to return the same. Therefore, the same has to be treated as income of the assessee. If the aggregate advance is added to the profit so far declared it works out to Rs.33,66,83,054/- which is less than the profits assessed at Rs.31,39,62,707/-. Hence, the difference of Rs.2,27,20,347/- is also assessed to tax as income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the difference of ₹.2,27,20,347/- has already been considered while computing the profits from the four projects in the above given assessment years and thus, there is no need to retain the above addition separately. 5. We have heard the rival contentions. In the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has challenged confirmation of net profit of ₹.1,35,97,822/- @ 30% on ₹.4,53,26,072 being sale of lands at Chavadi. During the course of examination of books of account, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has sold plots and recorded the sales in ledger account named as Plot Sales @ Chavadi Land . The aggregate amount of such sales made during the year between May, 2011 and March, 2012 was ₹.4,53,26,072/-. The assessee did not admit the sales in the profit and loss account. Instead the above amount was transferred to another account named as Chavadi Workin- progress A/c and reflected in balance sheet. When the details of the particulars of the plots sold were asked, the assessee sought time but did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. So far as appeal filed by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-14 is concerned, the assessee has challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). After following due procedure and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016 by estimating the net profit at 30% and accordingly, addition of ₹.67,66,367/- was made. On appeal, since there was no representation from the assessee and by following the decisions in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee Anr. 118 ITR 461 and in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT 223 ITR 480, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the addition made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
