Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
�ी शैल� कुमार यादव, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद�य के सम� । BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2) Room No. 204, C-11, Pratyaksh अपीलाथ#/Appellant Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Amarjeet B. Yadav 13-A, Shakti Tower, Shakti Nagar $%यथ#/Respondent C.S. Road No. 4, Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400068 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN - AAPPY9548L Shri Satya Pal Kumar अपीलाथ# क& ओर से / Appellant by: None $%यथ# क& ओर से/ Respondent by: सुनवाई क& तारीख /Date of Hearing : 04.11.2015 घोषणा क& तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2015 आदेश / O R D E R
PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM
This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of CIT(A) on following grounds: -
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the gross receipt u/s. 44AD and to tax the gross receipts as profit at 8% only.
Shri Amarjeet B. Yadav 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering that the assessee has filed the return for A.Y. 2009-10 beyond the due date and has filed the same u/s. 139 of the Act being the non- est return.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying Provision of 44AD on the unreported income of Rs.19,88,089/- while the assessee has already claim expenses in the return against this income.”
Assessee is running a proprietary concern in the name and style of M/s. Vindhya Electricals. During the year under consideration assessee has shown income from business at `3,28,598/-, income from other sources at `531/- and loss from house property at `20,936/-. After claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A assessee has shown net taxable income at `2,72,418/-. Assessee had in the original computation, shown gross, receipts of `9,05,244/- and against this he declared profit of `3,28,598/- and TDS of `12,224/-. In the revised return assessee has further claimed TDS of `51,294/- and gross receipts have been declared at `19,88,089/-. In view of this Assessee was therefore asked by the Assessing Officer as to why this additional amount of gross receipts should not be treated as receipts not offered to tax. The stand of assessee in this regard has been that he had filed revised return in that gross receipt of `30,50,412/- and net profit is `3,28,598/- which is 10% of total turnover of the above A.Y. 2009-10 in revised return. Assessee
Shri Amarjeet B. Yadav claimed expenses of `27,21,814/- which was actual and genuine. In this background assessee has shown profit of `3,28,593/- against the turnover of `9,05,244/- by claiming expenses of `5,76,646/-. The expenses of `5,76,646/- which were already claimed in the original return were the expenses for the entire turnover and the difference in that turnover as pointed out at `19,88,089/- were the only unreported turnover. The claim of TDS of `51,294/- cannot be allowed without taking into consideration the turnover/gross receipts on which the TDS is claimed. In view of the above discussion the difference in turnover of `19,88,089/- which is unreported in the return of income was brought to tax.
3. The matter was carried before the first Appellate Authority wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee and having gone through the same CIT(A) and observed that assessee is covered under provisions section 44AD and should be taxed for only 8% of the gross receipts as profit. The same has been opposed on behalf of Revenue, inter alia, submitting that CIT(A) erred in treating the gross receipt under section 44AD and to tax the gross receipts as profit at 8% only. Accordingly the CIT(A) erred in applying provisions of section 44AD on the unreported income of `19,88,089/- while assessee has already claimed expenses in the return against this income. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of Shri Amarjeet B. Yadav the AO be restored. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of assessee. So the matter is being decided exparte on the basis of the arguments of learned D.R. and the material on record.
After going through the rival submissions and material on record we find that assessee has submitted copies of ITR-4 along
with computation of income both in original and revised returns.
Assessee also filed copies of TDS certificates to support its claim for the total TDS claim of `12,224/ and additional claim of `51,294/-. It shows that assessee while filing original return had only declared turnover of `9,05,244/- and claimed expenses of `5,76,646/-. The additional turnover offered as well as TDS has been declared subsequently and no new evidence for any further claim has been given. Assessee has made an alternative claim that assessee is covered by the provisions of section 44AD should be taxed for only
8% of the gross receipts as profit. Therefore principle of 8% net profit over the turnover was found to be reasonable to be adopted for the entire turnover. The total turnover of `28,93,333/- and 8% thereon of `2,31,466. Thus assessee was granted relief of `97,132/- and Assessing Officer was directed to give credit for the entire amount of TDS for the year which works out to `63,518/-. This reasoned factual finding of the CIT(A) need no interference from our side. We uphold the same.