TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " The assessee is a registered firm and took out Government contracts. In the year in question, he took out a contract for building a road from Rihand to Singhrauli. A return showing the net income of Rs. 24,814 was filed, which was 1.5% of the contract money received which were to the tune of Rs. 20,46,978. On the 20th February, 1968, counsel for the assessee appeared before the ITO, and discussed the case, and agreed that a net rate of 6.5% be applied to those payments received in each of the years relevant to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68. A revised return was also filed for these years. The ITO, however, did not accept this return, but took the income from contracts at Rs. 2,04,968, and included in the total income an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee then appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed the fact that the assessee had filed a return showing a G.P. rate of 1.5% but subsequently he revised it, and disclosed a G.P. rate of 6.5%. On the basis of this, it concluded that the assessee had not shown its correct income in the original return. So far as the revised return is concerned the Tribunal took the view that the assessee had not been able to satisfactorily explain as to how he agreed to the imposition of a rate of 6.5% on his gross receipts from contracts and no advantage could be given to the assessee for filing the revised return. It then considered the question of addition of Rs. 21,709 as income from unexplained cash credits. It noticed the fact that the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable, and, further, the agreement for being taxed at a higher rate was on account of the undertaking given by the ITO that he would not impose any penalty. In the present case apart from other things, the cash credit entries standing in the books of the assessee could not be satisfactorily explained, and the Tribunal has held that these represented additional income of the assessee from contract business. Thus, the cash credit in the account books of the assessee, on the findings recorded by the Tribunal, was its concealed income. The record does not disclose that the ITO had agreed not to take any legal action in case the assessee agreed to be assessed at a higher rate. This being so, the principle laid down in Kishan Singh Chand's case [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
