TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasons such as assessee being illiterate, improper guidance and ill-advice by the earlier Chartered Accountant Shri N T Rahalkar not to file appeal before the ITAT. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has a very good case on merits and therefore, he prayed that the delay of 581 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. In support of his contention, the ld.AR has filed an affidavit of the assessee narrating each and every day's delay in addition to the affidavit in support of averments made by Shri N T Rahalkar, earlier CA . The ld.AR also filed an affidavit of Shri D S Jain, CA accepting the fact that he has advised under the bonafide belief to the assessee not to file any appeal against the order u/s 263 before ITAT. Therefore, the ld.AR submitted that the delay is not on the part of assessee and there is no malafide intention to file appeal belatedly before the ITAT. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the delay is condoned and appeal is heard and decided on merits. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be decided on merits. In support of his co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore accepting the same as genuine. iii) The assessee had shown Agricultural income of Rs. 35,650/- but as per balance-sheet no agricultural land is owned by him. The AO had also failed to make inquiry on this issue. Accordingly, a notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 4.12.2007 proposing to revise the assessment order dated 7.3.2007" 7. The assessee replied the notice issued by the Commissioner u/s 263 which is as under : "(i) Regarding non-deduction of tax on payments to sub-contractors, the facts have not been disputed by the assessee except for stating that he was not aware of provisions of TDS being made applicable to him. (ii) As far as agricultural income is concerned, the same is said to arise out of some ancestral land received by the assessee after death of his father. This is the reason why the land is not appearing in the balance-sheet of the assessee. (iii) The loan of Rs. 45,000/- appears to have been taken from assessee's wife (wrongly shown as Mr.S A Gaikwad instead of Mrs. S A Gaikwad in the balance sheet). This amount was suppose to arrange by pledging jewellery of assessee's wife to make labour payment" Finally, the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (296 ITR 324) ; B. Decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v Purushottamlal Tamrakar (270 ITR 314); C. Order of the Tribunal, Special Bench, Kolkata in the case of ITO v Kenaram Shah and Subhash Saha (301 ITR (AT) 171 (relevant pages only) D. Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Singhal Builders Contractor v. ACIT (12 Taxmann.com 199) ; E. Order of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of Teja Constuctions V.s ACIT (129 TTJ (UO) F. Order of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of K Srinivasan Naidu v. ACIT [131 TTJ 17 (UO)] G. Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in the case of ITO v. Shri Sadananda Singha and vice versa for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA Nos. 133/Kolj2010 and 1881/Kol/2009 dated 13.8.2014 H. ITO V/s Akash Developers in ITA No.859/Kol/2012 (AY-2007-08) dated 20.11.2015" The ld. AR submitted that the AO has taken one of the possible view and therefore reopening the assessment as made by the AO was bad in law. 9. The ld. DR on the other hand, strongly opposed the argument advanced by the ld.AR and submitted that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s there any need to go into Section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(l). We see force in the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that when the income of the assessee was computed applying the gross profit rate and when no deduction was allowed in regard to the purchases of the assessee, there was no need to look into the provisions of Section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(J). No disallowance could have been made in view of the provisions of Section 40A(3), read with rule 6DD(J) as no deduction was allowed to and claimed by the assessee in respect of the purchases. When the gross profit rate is applied, that would take care of everything and there was no need for the assessing officer to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on the purchases by the assessee. 7. No substantial question of law arises. 8. The appeal is dismissed." In the case of Purushottamlal Tamrakar (supra), the Hon'ble MP High Court has held : 270 ITR 314); "30. We have considered this aspect in detail while deciding the ground No. 5 in the case of Shri Santosh Kumar Tamrakar. The facts are similar in the case of assessee also. In the case of the assessee also the income on sale of utensils has been assessed on estimated basi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under : "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account on the reason that, the assessee has not maintained proper books of account and also failed to produced vouchers for verification and the expenditure claimed by the assessee arc not substantiated. The assessee in earlier years also has not maintained the proper books of account. The assessee's past track records show that the assessed has neglected the presenting of the books of account in accordance with law. When the assessee claimed any expenditure, it is mandatory on the part of the assessee to produce the books of account supported by proper bills and vouchers. Since the assessee has not produced the proper books of account, true profits or loss cannot be deduced from the books of account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer having no other option rejected the books of account and estimated the income at 10 per cent of gross receipts. But the position is that, the assessee is carrying on three kinds of contracts, as in earlier years, i.e., (i ) own contracts, (ii) contracts taken from the sub-contractors, (iii) contract....