Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
2 ITA No.394 /CT K/20 16 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower
authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the
Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown gross receipt from
transportation work of Rs.9,75,16,499/-, and from marble trading of
Rs.12,81,280/-. The gross profit on marble trading has been shown as
Rs.1,18,887/-. After debiting various expenses in the P&L account, the net
profit was shown at Rs.13,95,471/- which is around 1.41% of the total gross
receipts from both the business. As the assessee could not produce details of
ledger copy with supporting bills and vouchers, therefore, he rejected the
books of account of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3)
of the Act and estimated the income at 3.5% of gross transportation receipts
of Rs.9,75,16,499/-, which worked out to Rs.34,13,077/-.
On appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the
estimation of income from transportation receipts @ 3.5% is excessive and
the rate should be 2.5% of the gross transportation receipts to meet the ends
of justice. However, ld CIT(A) did not accept the submission of the assessee
and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Before me, ld A.R. reiterated the submission made before the ld CIT(A).
On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the order of ld CIT(A).
4 ITA No.394 /CT K/20 16 Asse ss ment Y ear :20 10- 201 1 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant :Narendra Kumar Sharma, Prop. Shreeram Marble, At: N.S,Bose Marg, Talcher, dist: Angul. 2. The Respondent. ITO, Dhenkanal 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. CIT,Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//
ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, Cuttack