TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT's order for undisclosed income addition, rejects specific additions, applies 5% net profit rate.</h1> <h3>M/s Sadbhav Builders, c/o Kiran Patel & Co., Chartered Accountants, ‘Shree Ram Nivas’ Opp. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand. and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Baroda.</h3> M/s Sadbhav Builders, c/o Kiran Patel & Co., Chartered Accountants, ‘Shree Ram Nivas’ Opp. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand. and Commissioner of ... Issues involved:The judgment involves two appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03. The first appeal, ITA No.842/Ahd/2006, challenges the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 directing the AO to make an addition of Rs. 8 lacs disclosed during survey proceedings. The second appeal, ITA No.2659/Ahd/2005, contests various quantum additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the assessment order.ITA No.842/Ahd/2006 Asst. Year 2002-03:The AO determined the total income of Rs. 14,88,640/- for the assessee after a survey under section 133A revealed unrecorded cash receipts/expenditure of Rs. 8 lacs. The AO rejected the books under section 145 due to discrepancies between loose papers and cash book entries. Specific additions were made under various heads, including steel expenses, bricks expenses, octroi/transportation expenses, construction work expenses, and others. The ld. CIT directed the AO to make a specific addition of Rs. 8 lacs, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT's order, emphasizing the separate identity of the undisclosed income and the necessity to tax it independently.ITA No.2659/Ahd/2005 Asst. Year 2002-03:The assessee declared Rs. 8 lacs as undisclosed income during the survey, but only Rs. 69,880/- was declared in the return. The AO rejected the books under section 145 and made specific disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions, citing reasons such as lack of details, absence of evidence for monopoly in construction work, and vague explanations for increased expenses. The Tribunal held that once books are rejected, specific additions out of the books are irrelevant, and directed to apply a net profit rate of 5% on contract work. The total income for the year was determined as Rs. 10,07,940/-, including the Rs. 8 lacs disclosed during the survey.The appeals were disposed of with the first appeal being dismissed and the second appeal being partly allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
