UPKAR INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

At the outset, it may be noticed that the matters pending before the Tribunal arise out of the direction given by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation whereby consequential orders were passed by the Assessing Officer. These appeals were filed in 2015 and the case was adjourned on number of occasions but, on some ground or the other, the case was getting adjourned at the request of the assessee. Now the Ld Counsel for the assessee seeks adjournment on the ground that a

At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the case was adjourned on number of occasions and the assessee did not file the paper book till today and hence, there is no need to wait further. Even if the Miscellaneous Applications are posted for hearing, an appropriate decision can always be taken in that case independently and there is no need to wait eternally for the disposal of that appeal. I therefore reject the request and proceed to dispose of these appeals.

Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee did not make any elaborate submissions except relying on the arguments advanced in the form of grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of ‘civil contracts’ and declared a total income of Rs. 12,66,390/- which was originally processed u/s 143(3) of the Act but, later on the case was taken up for scrutiny wherein the assessment was completed by estimating the profit @ 12.5% on gross receipts offered by the assessee and depreciation was also allowed as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.

On an appeal filed by the assessee, Ld. CIT (A) directed the A.O. to estimate the profit @ 10% on gross receipts net of depreciation as already allowed by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, ITAT set aside the issue vide order dated 21.01.2013 directing the AO to

Aggrieved, assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO erred in not allowing depreciation. It was also contended that the AO erred in estimating the income @ 5% of the gross contact receipts by reducing only seignorage charges whereas he ought to have reduced other recoveries. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was also contended that the principal contractor, for whom the appellant carries out sub-contract work, declared net profit of 7.24% only for the AY 2003-04 and if the rate of 8% is to be applied to the principal contractor suitable adjustment to be made to the profit estimated by the Assessing Officer.

Ld CIT (A) rejected the contentions of the assessee by giving detailed analysis of facts, beginning from para 6 onwards. Ld DR therefore strongly relied on the order passed by the Ld CIT (A).

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. There is no material on record to justify the submissions made by way of grounds of appeal before the Tribunal and no material was placed to contradict the findings of the Ld CIT (A) and the Assessment Years involved here are 2003-04 and 2004-05. If the assessee is unable