TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unverifiable Sundry Creditors which is beyond assessee's control, levying false charges of not maintaining the Stock records which is almost of negligible value in terms of percentage (i.e. 0.43% of turnover) which is nothing but scrap/consumables and false allegations of properness of wages register. Ld. ACIT with his premind set has decided to pass the Assessment order as per the previous footing without application of mind with which the Assessee was never convinced and it appears that it has become the routine matter to assess the Assessee's Case by applying the deeming provisions of Section 44 AD of Income Tax Act, 1961, despite of the good intention of the assessee at all levels in the present circle of assessment, which is on record. 3. That CIT (Appeals)-XX erred in confirming the order of Ld. ACIT (after allowing only partly relief by reducing the percentage of net profit from 8% to 5% on Contract Receipts and deducting there from the Depreciation of Rs. 20,09,838.00) which is apparent from face and assessing the income in the tune of Ld. ACIT u/s.44AD of I.T. Act,1961 which is out of scope as assessee's case is duly audited u/s. 44AB of I.T. Act, 1961. The Partly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity Construction Prop. Vineet Deorari Vs. ACIT, Surat dated 29.10.2010. Lastly, we have to express our feelings that such type of hard assessment are not only illegal but are deviating from the fundamental theories of Income Tax Assessment that the assessment should be assessee friendly. Thus, we can say that the Ld. ACIT Circle 62(1), New Delhi assessed the case Arbitrarily, illegally, beyond the ambit of Law and against the Law of Natural Justice wherein the partly relief given by CIT (A), New Delhi wouldn't suffice to provide the available legal platform to the asessee. Relief Claimed: The order passed by the Ld. ACIT Circle 62(1), New Delhi and partly confirmed by CIT (Appeals)- XX needs be disowned and be set aside and assessee's return as submitted be accepted in the interest of justice. The Assessee reserve his rights to provide some other information relevant to the case at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a government contractor and has worked mainly for Greater Noida Authority (Uttar Pradesh). For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 13/09/2014 declaring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Kolkata bench dated 20/01/2016 in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Gourangalal Chatterjee Construction Private Limited, wherein net profit estimated at the rate of 8%, was reduced to 2.5% after allowing statutory expenses like depreciation interest on borrowed capital, etc. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Ahemedabad bench in the case of Quality Construction in ITA No. 4544/Ahd./2007 and others and submitted that in the said case the Tribunal confined the net profit at the rate of 3.25% of the receipt. The Ld. counsel also referred to decision dated 22/05/2015 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT- 21 Vs Rajender Singh, wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal confirming the net profit rate of 1.94% estimated by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the defects noticed by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the rejection of books of accounts. On the issue of net profit rate applied by the Ld. CIT(A), he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed finding of his predecessor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ritten submission has contested the issue of allowing statutory expenses like, depreciation etc. out of the 8% gross profit rate estimated by the Assessing Officer but not contested the issue of rejection of books of account. In view of uncontroverted defects in books of accounts, we don't find any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the rejection of books of accounts. Accordingly, we uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking section 145(3) of the Act and rejection of books of accounts of the assessee. 9. As far as sustaining the net profit rate of 5% on works contract subject to depreciation and 3% rate on supply, by the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the finding of his predecessor in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13. In the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced finding of his predecessor in assessment year 2012-13. In view of the finding of his predecessor, the Ld. CIT(A) estimated the profit in the year under consideration as under : "4.3.5 As the facts and circumstances of the case is almost similar, respectfully following the observation of CIT(A) in A.Y. 2012-13, the rej....