2013 (4) TMI 819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g total income of ₹ 20,17,220/- on 30.09.2009. The assessee also enclosed an Audit Report obtained for the financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. The perusal of this Audit Report showed that the assessee has debited various expenses to the works account. The details of these expenses are as under: "S.No. Nature of expense Amount 1. Mitti Expenses Rs.19,44,000/- 2. Tractor Trolley Expenses Rs.18,68,096/- 3. Road Roller Expenses Rs.16,62,155/- 4. Water Expenses Rs.14,75,200/- 5. Paver Machine Expenses ₹ 5,32,000/- 6. JCV Machine Expenses ₹ 4,80,451/-" 3. To examine the genuineness of the above expenses, the assessee was directed to produce Stock Register and also to furnish compl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the assessee has shown its inability to produce them for examination. Whereas it was necessary to do so to verify the genuineness of the payments made to them. iv) The information received from the District Transport Officer, Sangrur clearly reveals that three of the five vehicle (i.e. one three wheeler & two Scooters) are actually not capable for being used for transportation of material used in the contract work and astonishingly the assessee has claimed to have transported the material at the worksite through these vehicles. It proves that the assessee has debited bogus expenses and mislead the revenue by submitting that there is clerical mistake due to oversight." 4. As a result, the AO has not found books of account to depict a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....@ 8% against the gross payment of ₹ 9,68,46,622.00 ignoring the fact & nature of case. 3. The worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by ignoring the past history of the case & assessment order passed U/S 143(3) by JCIT Sangrur for immediate Preceding Assessment Year 2007-08 despite of fact that there is no change in nature of business & circumstances of case. 4. That the worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Patiala has erred by not allowing depreciation amounting to ₹ 25,24,388/- in the light of jurisdictional High Court judgment in case of CIT Vs. Chopra Bros. 252 ITR 412 and Bhullar Construction, 286 ITR 686. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal i....