Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. The revised grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-
“1. That the AO has grossly erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 18,10,307/- on account of lower net profit rate disclosed in the return.
That the appellant in the return has declared the correct net profit rate based on the actual facts and circumstances and the net profit rate applied by the AO of 4.5% is illegal, bad in law and based on mere
guesswork.
3. That the addition of Rs. 18,10,307/- was agreed
before the AO and not pressed before the CIT(A) under an incorrect and wrong understanding of facts and law and on an incorrect advise given to the appellant.
This addition is illegal, bad in law and should be deleted.”
At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 211 days in filing the appeal and in this behalf the assessee has filed the application alongwith affidavit for condoning the delay in dispute. After perusing the said application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit, I am of the view that due to reasonable cause the delay was occurred, hence, the delay in dispute is condoned.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring taxable income of Rs. 14,70,073/- on 17.9.2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 01.9.2011 and served upon the assessee.
Subsequently notices u/s. 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were also issued requiring the assessee to furnish certain details / information.
In response to the same, the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed the necessary replies to the queries of the AO.
During the year under consideration the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction works. During the year under consideration, it has shown gross turnover / gross receipts of Rs. 7,46,78,577/-, indirect income of Rs. 1,93,963/- and net profit at Rs. 17,20,072/-. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish details of sundry creditors, details of bank accounts, house hold expenses, detail of contract receipts of Rs. 7,46,78,577/- and indirect income of Rs. 1,93,963/-, ledger account of wages, salary etc. The assessee furnished various documents including copy of bank account, and details of sundry creditors and copies of ledger account of wages and salary during assessment proceedings that were looked into and verified. During the assessment proceedings, AO noted that many of the expenses were not duly supported by proper bills and vouchers and NP rate shown by the asseseee his also low. Keeping in view the same, counsel of the assessee agreed for applying NP rate of 4.5% subject to no penal action. On contract receipts of Rs. 7,46,78,577/- net profit @4.5% comes to Rs. 33,60,536/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 18,10,307/- was made to the income of the assessee and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 38,16,385/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.3.2013. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 31.3.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that addition of Rs. 18,10,307/- was agreed before the AO and not pressed the Ld. CIT(A) under an incorrect and wrong understanding of facts and law and on incorrect advise given to the appellant. Hence, this addition is illegal, bad in law and should be deleted.
On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order. As regards the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee relating to addition of Rs. 18,10,307/- which was agreed before the AO and not pressed before the Ld. CIT(A) relating to incorrect and wrong understanding of facts and law and on incorrect advise given to the assessee is concerned, I find there is no sufficient evidence in the shape of Affidavit of the then Assessee’s counsel is filed by the assessee in this regard to substantiate the contention of the assessee. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee and reject the same and accordingly the grounds raised by the Assessee stand rejected, as the then ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that he is willing not to press the appeal on the issue of addition of Rs. 18,10,307/- and to which the assessee in the course of assessment through the Ld. Counsel has already agreed. Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed.