TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,14,727/- (559485-44758) which was a part of concealed contract receipts i.e. Rs.5,59,485/- not reflected in the regular books of account maintained by the assessee and was detected by the AO through thorough investigation. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,14,727/- and Rs.1825400/- for alleged unexplained investment utilized by the assesse to pay wages to workers/labourers without appreciating the facts that these additions were made by the AO for unexplained expenditure u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assesse could not explain the source of this expenditure and the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances of the case, the rate of 8% is applied on the total receipts of Rs.1,07,19,909/-, working out the Net profit at Rs.8,57,592/-. In para 7, the AO worked out 8% of the net profit rate of Rs.5,59,485/- as discussed hereinabove, which is not recorded in the books of account on account of contract work. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 44,758/- in para 7 of his order. 3.1. In para 7.1, the AO made the balance addition of Rs.5,14,727/- on account of unexplained investment being balance of Rs.5,59,485 - 44,758/- as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. Vide para 8, the AO made the addition of Rs.18,25,400/- under section 69B of the Act, on account of unexplained investment utilized by the assessee to pay wages to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se and each case has to be seen in its own facts and circumstances. 7. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Sudershan Kapoor, Advocate supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and argued that the accounts of the assessee are audited, which is a matter of record. The AO had applied net profit rate of 8%. Once net profit rate having been applied no other addition in the profit & loss account can be made and he relied upon the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) given vide para 5 of his order. As regards the works amounting to Rs.5,59,485/-, the assessee had received the payment on 03.12.2007 at Rs.5,35,418/- after deduction of tax at source at Rs.12868/- is a matter of record. The said receipt of Rs.5,59,485/- was credited in the following year when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a mistake on the part of the AO but the fact remains that the AO had applied the NP rate of 8% on the gross receipts of Rs.107,19,909/- by the assessee. The arguments made by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Sudershan Kapoor, appears to be convincing with regard to the addition of Rs.5,14,727/- that the said amount had been received in the following year after deduction of tax at source. The total amount in dispute was Rs.5,59,485/-and after deduction of tax at source amount received was Rs.5,35,418/- and credited in the bank on 03.12.2007 though collected on 02.01.2008. The Bank statement and TDS certificate has been placed on record. Therefore, the AO is directed to accept the gross contract receipts as declared by the assessee. ....