TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and thereby confirming the assessment order dated 15.03.2013 (Annexure P-4). Direction has also been sought to the CIT, Rohtak, for reconsideration of the petition filed by the petitioner. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitionerassessee is an individual based at Rohtak. He is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and is providing services mainly to the Government sector. He filed return of income tax for the assessment year 2010-11 on 25.05.2010, declaring income at Rs. 1,74,500/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 15.03.2011. On 31.03.2012, the petitioner revised return declaring income at Rs. 4,84,627/-. The return of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us considerations; record of the case was not perused and that enquiry may be made in the case as it was a case of no-voice before the Assessing Officer. Vide order dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure P-9), the Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act. According to the petitioner, he had provided all the relevant documents to his counsel, but unfortunately he could not concentrate on his legal work because of prolonged illness of his only son who later on died on 14.01.2015. Further, the petitioner was pre-occupied in the treatment of his cousin brother-in-law residing with him at Rohtak and getting treatment of cancer at PGIMS, Rohtak, who also died on 20.04.2016. Thus, the counsel of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he gross receipts of the assessee was held to be quite reasonable on the basis of the material available before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the CIT finding no errer in the order passed by the Assessing Officer, rightly concurred with the view taken by the Assessing Officer and rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act. 5. Even before this Court, the petitioner-assessee was provided opportunity to demonstrate that the profit rate of 12% adopted by the Assessing Officer was higher and unreasonable. The assessee had filed the certificate of gross profit rate and net profit rate for the Assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-2015 (Annexure P.12) which reads thus:- "CA Arvind Krishan Associates Chartered Account....