Appeal success due to NP rate adjustment and book rejection in tax assessment

The appeal challenged the assessment order under section 143(3) due to lack of jurisdiction. The AO invoked section 145(3), rejecting books of account and applying an 8.5% NP rate, resulting in an addition of Rs. 10,72,520. The CIT (A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal adjusted the NP rate to 6% due to insufficient evidence. Interest income from FDRs was treated separately, leading to a confirmed addition. The Tribunal did not address the charging of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D explicitly, focusing on the NP rate calculation and book rejection. The appeal was partly allowed based on the NP rate adjustment and book rejection.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of assessment order under section 143(3)
2. Application of section 145(3) for trading addition
3. Treatment of interest income from FDRs as business receipts
4. Charging of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D

Jurisdiction of assessment order under section 143(3):
The appeal challenged the assessment order dated 05.12.2011, claiming it to be bad in law and jurisdiction. The appellant argued for its quashing due to lack of jurisdiction and other reasons. The appellant, a contractor in civil construction work, revised the income declaration for A.Y. 2009-10 to Rs. 1,25,99,660/-. The AO invoked section 145(3) due to low net profit rate after excluding interest income and rental income. The AO rejected the books of account, applying an 8.5% NP rate, leading to an addition of Rs. 10,72,520. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, citing past history and rejecting the appeal.

Application of section 145(3) for trading addition:
The AO's application of an 8.5% NP rate, post rejection of books of account, was based on past history and upheld by the CIT (A). The appellant argued for deletion of the addition, citing a lower NP rate declared for a subsequent year. The Tribunal considered the absence of stock register and verified books, leading to the rejection of books of account and estimation of NP rate at 8.5%. However, the Tribunal restricted the NP rate to 6% due to lack of concrete evidence to support the higher rate.

Treatment of interest income from FDRs as business receipts:
The AO treated interest income from FDRs as income from other sources, separate from contract receipts, leading to a separate tax assessment. The CIT (A) supported this treatment, considering the expenses already claimed in the P&L account. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the separate nature of FDR income from business receipts, leading to the confirmed addition.

Charging of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The appellant denied liability for interest charged under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D, arguing against its consequential nature. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue explicitly in the judgment, focusing mainly on the application of section 145(3) and the NP rate calculation. The appeal was partly allowed based on the NP rate adjustment and rejection of books of account.

---