TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor and declared income of Rs. 35,87,780/-. The AO issued several statutory notices asking the assessee to produce the books of account along with bills and vouchers of the expenditure. The assessee produced the cash book and ledger only, but did not produce any bills/vouchers of expenses debited to profit and loss account. Further, no details of the sundry creditors were produced. The AO in absence of any cooperation from the side of assessee passed exparte assessment order u/s. 144 and made following disallowances : (i). On account of sundry creditors for goods Rs.32,73,524/- (ii). Provision of expenses being salary & wages Rs.29,60,560/- (iii). Purchase of fixed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of the assessee and noted that despite giving opportunity to the assessee, he failed to produce necessary evidences to substantiate the claim made and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that in earlier years 2002-03 to 2006-07 on the same set of facts, the ld. CIT(A) maintained lump sum addition of Rs. 1 lac only and in assessment year 2009-10, the Tribunal following its earlier years decision in the case of same assessee restricted the addition to Rs. 2,50,000/- vide order dated 29.01.2013. He has submitted that since the assessee is having the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that since NP rate is applied as was also applied in earlier years, therefore, this addition should not be made. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is devoid of merit. It is well settled law that addition on account of unexplained cash credit shall have to be separately made even if profit rate has been applied for computing the business income of the assessee. We rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 and CIT vs. Devi Prasd Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is accordingly rejected. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f purchases made. The assessee explained that for the computation of depreciation, details have also been given in the audit report. The AO in the absence of production of bills found the same as unexplained investment under fixed asset and added the same u/s. 68 of the Act. 10. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to sustain this addition. The assessee produced annexure to the audited accounts in respect of the above additions made to the fixed assets on which depreciation has been claimed. The audited account shows that the assessee made addition of Rs. 25,29,893/- to the fixed assets. It would, therefore, show that these purchases have been shown in the books of account and have specifically show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 2,50,000/- in all considering the history of the assessee and following earlier years order of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee. Para 4 of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : "4. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of the same assessee in preceding assessment years referred to above. The assessee is doing the same business as was doing in the earlier years. The assessee has shown profit rate of 4.16% in assessment year under appeal, which is already excessive as compared to the preceding assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, in which the assessee has shown profit rate of 2.02% and 2.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditions are taken into consideration to the profit of assessee, it would give net profit rate approximately of 16% which in our view is highly unreasonable, excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, considering the history of the assessee and same set of facts and that total gross contract receipts of the assessee are of Rs. 9.75 crores, even if 1% net profit is enhanced, it would result in addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- only. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and the history of the assessee, instead of making huge additions on account of disallowance, out of various expenses under the four heads as above, it would be reasonable and appropriate to make addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- in all to the income of the assessee to ....