2016 (7) TMI 1474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of CIT(A). 2. Facts are in brief that the assessee is a civil contractor filed a return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 80,37,310/-. The A.O. has observed that the assessee is also sub contractor and it has reflected Rs. 23,43,94,382/- as a contract receipt and Rs. 2,39,556/- as other receipts. This aspect was examined by obtaining the work orders and details of form no.26AS for the year under consideration as per which the gross turnover stood at Rs. 23,43,94,382/- and TDS deducted at Rs. 23,49,691/-. 3. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the A.O. has asked the assessee to produce the books of accounts. The assessee was not able to produce the proper books of accounts. The A.O. has observed that from the explanat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7%. The assessee has explained that the work has to be undertaken under the water and the labourers who were engaged has to be maintained at the site throughout the year under difficult situations. The A.O. has further observed that the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts properly and it was prepared to some extent based on the bank statement, some vouchers and bills and with the receipts obtained from the employers accordingly he rejected the books of accounts and he estimated the profit in respect of sub contract works estimated at 7%. So far as main contract is concerned, he has estimated 12.5%. In so far as an amount of Rs. 2,39,566/- returned by the assessee other income is also added separately. Assessee carried matter i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t works and 7% on sub-contract works. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to substantiate his stand. On the other hand, the appellant contended that in the earlier years in his case, assessments were completed with estimation of profit at 5% on sub contract receipts. The appellant also contended that the works are continuation of earlier years and hence adoption of higher percentage for this year not justified. 5.2. After considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the point to be noted here is that as to what is the appropriate yield depends on facts and circumstances of each case and there are no hard and fast rules to be applied on universal basis. But in any case various appell....