C J GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1, RAIGAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3569/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 September 2017AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) on both issues, finding that the assessee did not provide any material to contradict the findings. The assessee failed to offer income from the project and interest income to taxation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in construction, did not offer any income from a project despite receiving sale advances and executing work. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated profit on the work in progress, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee also failed to offer interest income to tax, which was also confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of profit from a construction project and the assessment of interest income, given the assessee's failure to offer them for taxation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but implicitly related to income recognition and taxability of interest.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Hearing: 20.9.2017Pronounced: 20.9.2017

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23- 01-2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad and it relates to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of profit from the project and the assessment of interest income.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

3.

I heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The assessee is in construction business. Though it was stated that it is following percentage completion method, it did not offer any income from the project undertaken by it. The AO noticed that the assessee has received sale advance of 2.90 crores and also executed project to the tune of Rs.5.70 crores. The assessee could not offer

2 M/s. C.J. Gajras Builders & Developers any explanation as to why it did not offer any income. Hence the AO determined the work in progress at ` 2.91 crores (after giving effect to the order of Ld CIT(A) passed for AY 2009-10) and estimated the profit at 10% thereof. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same.

4.

The AO noticed that the assessee has received interest income of Rs.7,52,026/-, but did not offer the same to taxation. Hence the AO assessed the above said amount as income of the assessee and the same was also confirmed by Ld CIT(A).

5.

I have learned D.R and perused the record. I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order on both the issues. Before me, the assessee did not file any material to contradict the findings given by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly I confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 20.9.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →