Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]
order : May 16th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Durgapur, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 31/07/2015, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.
Brief facts of the case:- The assessee is an individual and is in the business of carrying out contracts. He filed his return of income on 06/09/2010, declaring total income of Rs.9,32,660/-. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.86,24,660/- interalia making additions on account of disallowance of expenditure and undisclosed investments. The assessee carried the matter in appeal.
2.1. The ld. First Appellate Authority, deleted the additions made on account of undisclosed investment. He invoked the provisions u/s 145(3) of the Act and 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Tapan Singha rejected the books of account of the assessee and, therefore, estimated the income of the assessee at a percentage of gross receipts. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us.
Heard rival contentions. After perusing papers on record, orders of the authorities below and case-law cited, We hold as follows:- 4. In Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3, the revenue alleges that the ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence. We find that no additional evidence was produced or admitted by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, these grounds are mis-conceived and against the facts of the case. The ld. D/R could not point out as to what are the additional evidences which were allegedly admitted by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we dismiss these grounds of the revenue.
Ground No. 5 is against the ld. CIT(A) granting relief on merits. The revenue has not disputed the rejection of books of accounts of the ld. CIT(A). Once the books of accounts are rejected and income is estimated the question of sustaining individual disallowance made on claims of expenditure does not arise. Coming to the undisclosed investments, the ld. CIT(A) at para 8 of his order dealt with the issue. This aspect is not challenged by the revenue. The assessee had submitted that there is no undisclosed investment as the amounts in question were disclosed in the balance sheet of the business of the assessee as they were fully accounted for in the books of accounts. These factual submissions could not be controverted by the ld. D/R. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the revenue.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.