SUNRISE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI

Assessee by: None Department by: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 04.01.2017 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – ITA No.3166.M.16 A.Y. 2011-12 44 has erred in not providing an opportunity to explain the difference between the market value adopted by the stamp duty authorities and agreement value.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 44 has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.11,01,606/- which is on an adhoc basis, being 10% of the wages paid to the workers on the ground that the identities of these workers not proved. He failed to appreciate the nature of work and frequency of labour turnover in the business of the appellant.

3. The above grounds are independent of the other. The appellant craves leave to add alter and delete any of the other ground on or before the completion of the appellate proceedings.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 30.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.7,47,360/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee was deriving the income from business of labour contractor and had taken contracts at sites of other builders during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by assessing total income to the tune of Rs.64,05,342/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.