2013 (6) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (i) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of labour expenses/wages in the absence of proper evidence. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unverifiable purchases. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that merely because the assessee's accounts are audited, the claims does not become admissible, particularly so when the assessee fails to substantiate his claim. (iii) That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other." 2. The cross objections raised by the assessee are as follows:- "1. In spite of the fact that the Gross Profit of the assessee is better than the preceding year, there is no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., i.e., 13.10% this year as against 12.90% in the preceding year; that similar additions made for Assessment Year 2008-09 were deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) and such deletion has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to pages 25-32 of the assessee's paper book, which is a copy of the Tribunal order dated 15.06.2012, passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's case for Assessment Year 2008-09, in ITA No.1313/Del/2012 in the appeal preferred by the department against the CIT (A)'s order. 5. Apropos the labour expenses/wages claimed by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee, who was carrying on the business of civil construction work during the year, had shown a decrease in the net profit rat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s similar to that made for Assessment Year 2008-09. Under similar facts and circumstances as in that year, the Ld. CIT (A) has restricted the addition to Rs. 1 lac which, in our considered opinion is well justified. Accordingly, ground No.1 raised by the department is rejected. 8. So far as regards ground No.2, the assessee had claimed material purchased of Rs. 32,33,17,184/-. The Assessing Officer verified the books of account with vouchers on a test check basis. It was observed that small purchases of items at sites were not supported by adequate purchase bills. An ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 8 lac was made by the Assessing Officer, allegedly to cover up the possibility of loss in the revenue arising out of the stated unverifiable natur....