Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ)
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri dated 04.07.2018 and the grounds raised therein by the Revenue read as under:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to GP rate of the relevant year (14.6%) of the difference in gross receipts of Rs.11,46,345/-.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to GP rate of the relevant year (14.6%) of the difference in gross receipts as assessee has already claimed expenditure on the amount of Rs. 11,46,345/-, she is not eligible to get additional benefit of expenditure by considering the GP of above amount as income.
Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Smt. Nanda Sen, Malda
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the whole amount of Rs.11,46,345/- was reflected in his 26AS statement and thus, it becomes the income of the said Asst. year.
The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in contracting business. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by her on 16.11.2007 declaring total income of Rs.9,67,070/-. The said return was initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1). On inspection of the relevant record, the Audit Party found that gross receipts from contract amounting to Rs.11,46,345/- reflected in 26AS Statement were not included by the assessee in the contract receipts declared in the return. On the basis of this audit objection, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer and since the assessee could not offer any satisfactory explanation in the matter, the amount of Rs.11,46,345/- was added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 07.03.2014.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found that the actual amounts received by the assessee in some of the cases were less than what was shown in the relevant TDS certificate. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect and allow appropriate relief to the assessee. The appeal effect to the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) was given by the Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.06.2015, wherein he did not allow any relief to the assessee on the ground that there was no documentary evidence produced by the assessee to support and substantiate her case. According to the assessee, there was a mistake in the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30.06.2015 in giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). She, therefore, moved Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Smt. Nanda Sen, Malda an application for rectification under section 154, which was also rejected by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee again went in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) restricted the addition of Rs.11,46,345/- to Rs.1,67,366/- being Gross Profit @ 14.6% on the undisclosed/un-reconciled contract receipts. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal of the revenue, therefore, is being disposed of ex-parte qua the respondent-assessee after hearing the arguments of ld. D.R. and perusing the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the difference in gross contract receipts as reflected in the relevant TDS certificates and as declared by the assessee was sought to be explained by the assessee as the deductions made by the concerned parties from the contract bills on various grounds. When the ld. CIT(Appeals) in the first round of litigation directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not accept the same for want of the relevant details and documents. When the matter was again carried to the ld. CIT(Appeals) by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) held by his impugned order that the entire reconciled difference in contract receipts could not be treated as income of the assessee and it would be fair and reasonable to make the addition only to the extent of gross profit @ 14.6% on such gross receipts. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that a fair and reasonable approach has been adopted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) while deciding this issue and even the ld. D.R. has not been able to point out any infirmity in the said approach adopted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) calling for any interference. I, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Smt. Nanda Sen, Malda with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and upholding the same, I dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 04, 2019.