TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. That the first notice u/s 143(2) of the said act was received back unserved, in the Income Tax Office Gurgaon, and the same was served on the assessee after stipulated time duration. 4. That the Hon'ble CIT (A) had errered in maintaining addition of Rs. 51, 36,751 into the income of the appellant on account of Gross receipts. 5. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) had errered in maintaining addition of Rs. 2,01,462, into the income of the appellant regarding WCT Payments. 6. That the order of the Ld. Assessing officer is liable to be quashed, on other grounds too which the appellant craves to add leaves to take at the time of hearing of this appeal. 7. That appellant craves to add, amend modify, alter or s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee did not produce any proof of the same. With respect to the disallowance on account of various expenditure and purchase he deleted the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) assessee has preferred appeal before us. 10. The first ground of appeal is general in nature and therefore, dismissed. 11. The second ground of appeal is that the Ld. Assessing Officer has passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 144 of the Act because of the reason that at each and every stage assessee has failed to submit the requisite details. Therefore, on the perusal of the order itself it is apparent that because of non cooperation by the assessee the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee however same were not received by the assessee and therefore, it was personally given to the assessee on 07.10.2010. The Ld. Assessing Officer has also mentioned that notice which have been stated to have been received back undelivered were not found on the assessment record of the assessee. It is also the claim of the Assessing Officer that assessee had not mentioned about any change in its address. The Ld. CIT (A) has noted in para No. 3.3 that as per assessment record the first notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2010 and was delivered through speed post at two addresses. On verification of the assessment record by him he held that one of the two notices came back unserved. He further noted that the order sheet and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- whereas according to form No. 26 AS the gross receipt was Rs. 19581270/-. During the assessment proceedings and before the Ld. CIT (A) it was stated that there are unmatched entries in Form No. 26AS. The difference in the turnover shown by assessee in its books of accounts as well as per Form No. 26AS can be on account of many reasons. One of the reasons may be the wrong posting by the tax deductor. It may also be because of advance paid by the principal to the contractor. Undoubtedly it may also be on account of turnover not shown by the assessee. Further merely there is a difference between the gross turnover as per books of accounts and gross receipts as per Form No. 26AS the addition cannot be made. In fact such the difference would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer on account of the fact that assessee has failed to show proof of payment of the Work Contractor Tax. The Ld. CIT (A) also confirmed it. 19. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has declared turnover of Rs. 14444516/- and 4% Work Contractor Tax there on is Rs. 577780/-. The VAT paid according of the turnover is Rs. 376318/- and therefore, the sum of Rs. 201462/- is payable. It was stated that according to the VAT law as assessee is a Work Contractor Tax is required to be paid by the principal and not the contractor. Hence, assessee submitted that there cannot be any addition on account of the same as nothing is payable by assessee. 20. The Ld. DR vehemently contested the arguments of the Ld. AR and submitted that if no Work ....