JITUBHAI H PINGHAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(3), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 31 {(in short ‘CIT(A)’}, dated 01/02/2012 passed against

“The learned CIT(A) 3 1, Mumbai erred in the facts and circumstances of case and in law in appreciating and ascertaining that all the unrecorded Labour charges be treated as income of the assessee , therefore, in these circumstances the entire unaccounted labour Charges have been wrongly brought to tax by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 31, Mumbai and A.O. 1.Therefore income of the Assessee be calculated by applying N P Ratio on unaccounted labour charges. 2.Your appellant prays that the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 31, Mumbai and Assessing Officer may be vacated. 3.Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete, modify, omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add new ground(s) of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearings.”

3 Jitubhai H. Pinghar 3.1. Brief facts and the background of this case as noted by the lower authorities are that as per the brief facts of the case, the assessee (an individual) was engaged in the business of a labor contractor during the relevant assessment year. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the group cases of Shri Omkarnath N. Kapila on 06.07.2004. During the course of the search proceedings a file of loose paper was seized. On the basis of same it was noted by the concerned officials that Shri Omkarnath Kapila had incurred heavy expenditure in cash on renovation of his residence situated at Flat No,1A/1B, first floor, Girnar Apartment, 55 Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai. The expenditure incurred thereon was not recorded in his regular books of account. It was also found that the entire carpentry work was carried out by Shri Jitubhai H.Pinghar, the assessee on contract basis. Accordingly, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the assessee. During the survey proceedings, a detailed statement of the assessee was recorded. The information and evidences gathered were accordingly transferred by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO having jurisdiction over the case.

3.2. During the course of assessment proceedings of the assessee, it was submitted by the assessee that a disclosure was made during the course of survey on account of receipt of unaccounted amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- from Shri Kapila on account of labour charges for carpentry work carried out in his residence. It was noted by the AO that the total amount of bills

4 Jitubhai H. Pinghar undisclosed was for Rs.16,28,697/-. Finally, AO made addition in the hands of assessee on account of undisclosed income on account of Rs.5,50,000/-, being unaccounted cash receipt declared by the assessee + 1,07,870/- i.e. 10% of Rs.10,78,697/-(being Rs.16,28,697- Rs.5,50,000/-). Thus, aggregate addition of Rs.6,57,870/- was made as an unaccounted income of the assessee.

3.3. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and made detailed submissions. But, Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. He also considered remand report of the AO on the submissions of the assessee.

3.4. During the course of hearing before us it has been submitted by the Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) has examined the facts of this case in detail and also considered the remand report of the AO and on the basis of the same Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed factual findings in his order. It is noted by us that nothing has been brought before us to negate or controvert the factual findings of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been discussed at great length that the assessee had not recorded its income on account of labour charges in his books of accounts. It appears that there is nothing with the assessee to counter the findings of Ld. CIT(A) as well as evidences brought on record by the department. The amount of undisclosed income was correctly computed by the AO. In view

5 Jitubhai H. Pinghar of the same, we find no reasons to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore same is upheld.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 2016.