TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO for making estimation of profit @ 5% and thereby rejecting the books of accounts which is not only bad in Law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Earlier this appeal was dismissed for default vide order dated 25 May, 2017. The appeal was however restored on allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, vide order dated 04.08.2017, therefore appeal was fixed for hearing on merit. 3. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. According to the office, the appeal is time barred by 3 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2011, assessee's Counsel appeared before AO and filed details but the books of accounts, the supporting bills and vouchers were not produced, despite given opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO therefore, proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the information available on record. The AO noted that assessee has been given sufficient opportunities to produce the books of accounts and the required details but the same have not been produced. The AO found from the record that assessee was required to file the details of the expenses claimed on account of Repair and Maintenance etc. because assessee did not own any fixed assets on which such expenses have been claimed. However, no detail has been furnished by the assessee. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of repeated opportunities did not comply with the order of the AO and did not produce the books of accounts alongwith supporting bills and vouchers to substantiate the declared results. The details of Repair and Maintenance expenses were not justified because the assessee did not own any fixed assets. The Ld. CIT(A), further, noted that whatever claim was made by the assessee was not proved. The Ld. CIT(A) in order to verify the expenses claimed by assessee, verified the evidence of salary sheet and evidence of disbursement of salary for part period. The Ld. CIT(A) on perusal of the same found that the signature of the number of persons to whom salary has been claimed to have been paid did not tally in various months i.e. the signature of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arguments had not been able to substantiate, if any, books of account produce were before the authorities below along with supporting documents. The assessee did not produce the books of accounts and supporting documents even before the Tribunal to justify the claim of deduction of the expenditure. Therefore, authorities below were justified in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, for the purpose of estimating the profit of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that books of accounts of the assessee are audited, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also filed chart of NP rate applied in subsequent years for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 ranges from 1.81%, 1.75% and 1.....