TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icted to issues, which are in appeal before the same. 1(c) Because the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Kanpur has grossly abused the power vested in him by virtue of section of 251A, which is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and prepondorous. 3. It was submitted by learned A.R. of the assessee that admittedly, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Kashi Nath Chandiwala [2006] 280 ITR 318 (All), this issue is decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court against the assessee but this judgment is distinguishable on facts and therefore, the same should not be followed. Thereafter, he submitted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Sardari Lal and Co. as reported in [2001] 251 ITR 86 (Del), this issue is covered in favour of assessee and, therefore, this issue should be decided in favour of the assessee by following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Gurjargravures P. Ltd. as reported in [1978] 111 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, disallowance of Rs. 20,000/- is made. On these issues, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). In the course of deciding this issue, the CIT(A) asked the assessee to produce books of account along with the bills and vouchers for explaining and substantiating the claim of expenditure made by the assessee in the profit & loss account and the claim of sundry creditors shown in the balance sheet. It was observed in Para 4 that the assessee has not produced either books of account or bills and vouchers. Thereafter, he held that in absence of such books of account and bills and vouchers, 50% of the labour expenditure and payable sundry creditors are liable to be disallowed. He has given a notice in this regard to the learned A.R. of the assessee as per order sheet entry dated 17/10/2013 and 24/10/2013. Thereafter, out of total claim of the assessee regarding labour and wages at Rs. 23,81,260/-, the CIT(A) made disallowance of Rs. 11.50 lac effecting enhancement of income although he deleted the disallowance of Rs. 36,019/- and Rs. 20,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. In our considered opinion, since the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer out of labour w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Kashi Nath Chandiwala (supra). Accordingly, ground No. 1 is rejected. 6. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is as under: 2. Because the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), caused enhancement of Rs. 26.50 lacs, in an arbitrary, illegal and unjustified manner by making a disallowance of Rs. 11.50 lacs towards Labour and Wages and Rs. 15 Lacs towards Creditors in an ad hoc manner even after recording a categorical finding that the books of account of the assessee are duly audited and accepting the book results by deleting additions made by the Ld. AO on issues raised in ground of appeal before him. 7. It was submitted by learned A.R. of the assessee that this addition made by learned CIT(A) is on ad hoc basis and without any basis. 8. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that a clear finding is given by learned CIT(A) that in spite of sufficient opportunity provided by him, the assessee has not produced either books of account or bills and vouchers. Thereafter, he made disallowance of Rs. 11.50 lac out of assessee's claim of labour and wages at Rs. 23,81,620/- and also made addition of Rs. 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contrary to from being bad in law deserves to be quashed. 8. The humble appellant craves for leave to introduce any other ground of appeal as may be found desirable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Hon'ble Court may graciously allow to be raised." 11. It was submitted by learned A.R. that the amount assessed by learned CIT(A) is an impossible assessment because the income assessed by CIT(A) is over 30% of gross receipts which is imaginary figure and impossible to earn and beyond parameter to work out profit of a contractor. 12. Regarding ground No. 6 of the appeal i.e. opportunity, it is submitted that last date was fixed by CIT(A) on 30th October, 2013 but on this date, CIT(A) was not available because of sudden demise of his father and thereafter, the order was passed by him on 14/11/2013 without providing any further opportunity and therefore, the order passed by him is in violation of principles of natural justice. He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) State of Orissa Vs Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC) (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 979 (Cal) (iii) Bri....