9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, is engaged in the business of carrying on contract works filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 27/11/2014 admitting a total income of Rs. 98,43,280/- as against the deemed total income of Rs. 67,85,114/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 18/09/2015 and the same was duly served on the assessee on 21/9/2015. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 1/6/2016 was issued along with annexure and called for certain information. In response, the assessee's Authorized Representative appeared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee by holding that the assessee has not maintained proper books of accounts and also failed to produce some of the vouchers for verification and the expenditure claimed by the assessee is not substantiated by proper bills / vouchers. Therefore, the Ld. AO resorted to estimate the income of the assessee-firm with respect to main contracts and sub-contracts and estimated @ 12.5% on main (direct) contracts and @ 8% on sub-contracts given (or) taken. While estimating the income of the assessee, the Ld. AO held that the assessee is entitled for depreciation and remuneration to directors on the profit estimated. Accordingly, the Ld. AO estimated the total income at Rs. 1,75,30,716/- [Rs. 1,24,37,506 on main contracts @ 12.5% + Rs. 50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r grounds may be urged at the time of hearing." 3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] argued that the Ld. AO has rejected the books of account and estimated the income @ 12.5% on the main contracts and @ 8% on the subcontract works. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has granted part relief to the assessee by allowing 8% on the main contracts and 5% on the sub-contracts. However, the Ld. AR pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not allow the depreciation and remuneration to Directors claimed by the assessee and allowed by the Ld. AO while estimating the profits of the assessee. The Ld. AR pleaded that since the issue of allowance of remuneration and depreciation was not before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
