Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI N.S SAINI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of
the CIT(A), Hazaribag, dated 28.6.2017 for the assessment year
2012-13.
The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the
CIT(A) was not was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer
to estimate the income of the assesse by applying rate of 8% on
gross receipts in place of 9% made by the Assessing Officer.
The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed
that the muster roll of labour charges for payment of
P a g e 1 | 3
ITA No. 227/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 13
:
Rs.71,49,368/- and supporting materials for purchase of
Rs.1,33,56,830/- were not produced before him. Further, details
of credit balance of Rs.2,76,394/- as on 31.3.2012 against labour
charges was also not proved. Therefore, he estimated the income
of the assesse by applying the rate of 9% of the civil contract
receipts and arrived at the income of Rs.20,90,519/-.
On appeal, the CIT(A) reduced the same to 8% of the gross
civil contract receipts of Rs.2,32,27,986/- thereby allowing relief of
Rs.2,32,280/- to the assesse.
Before me, ld A.R. of the assesse submitted that estimation
made at 8% of the gross contract receipts is on higher side and
same should be estimated by applying rate of 1.97% as shown by
the assesse.
Ld D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the CIT(A).
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the
materials on record, I find that rejection of books of account by the
Assessing Officer is not in dispute before me. The only submission
of ld A.R. is that estimation of income by applying rate of 8% to the
gross contract receipts is on higher side and same should be
reduced. Ld A.R. of the assesse submitted that the income should
be estimated @ 1.97%. I find that ld A.R. has not brought any
P a g e 2 | 3
ITA No. 227/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 13
:
material on record to show that the income computed by the CIT(A)
at 8% of the gross contract receipts is excessive. Therefore, I find
no good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is
hereby confirmed and ground of appeal of the assesse is rejected.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 27 /11/2018. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 27/11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. J.S.Construction, C/O. Sushil Kumar, At:Chedra, Bishnugarh, Hazaribag 2. The respondent:ITO, Ward 1(2), Hazaribag 3. The CIT(A)- Hazaribag 4. Pr.CIT- Hazaribag 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//
Sr. Pvt.secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour
P a g e 3 | 3