TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in applying the N.P. rate of 6.79% in place of 6.36% following the past history of the case. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, authorities below have further grossly erred in law in making/confirming addition of Rs. 25019/- (Rs. 5,382 & 19,637) on accounts of nonpayment of TDS amount within due date. The TDS amounts have been deposited before filling of ITR. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, authorities below have grossly erred in law in not considering agricultural income of Rs. 2,75,000/- and treating the same as income from other sources. 5. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing." Grounds of ITA No. 584/JP/2012 "i. The order of the CIT(A) is perverse as relevant and specific facts in the present year, in respect of debited expenses, have been overlooked, in favour of irrelevant and non-specific facts/details of the earlier year. ii. The order of the CIT(A) is perverse in assuming that the A.O. had actually i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not maintained stock register and details of purchases made and consumed as per para 28(b) A and B of Part B of form No. 3CD, the Auditor had commented that "Due to nature of trade, it is not possible to compile the quantity details of materials purchased and consumed and closing stock of inventory has been taken as certified by the proprietor". The Auditor had further commented in notes on account annexed with the form No. 3CD that "there are some expenses incurred through kachha bills. Assessee explained that due to nature of trade, it is not possible to collect pacca bills." The Assessing Officer gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this discrepancy found by him. All stock register, purchase, site wise details, material consumption register, labour expenses, freight and cartage expenses, JCB expenses, water and electrical charges shuttering expenses, site expenses, conveyance expenses, diesel expenses, testing charges, vehicle running and maintenance expenses, WCT expenses, salary expenses, addition in fixed assets and agricultural income. The appellant submitted reply vide letter dated 21/12/2012 under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rs. 25,019/-. Thus, total addition of Rs. 62,37,210/- was made by the learned Assessing Officer. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had decided the appeal partly in favour of the assessee by observing that on technical ground that books were not rejected U/s 145(3) of the Act but the learned CIT(A) held that the learned Assessing Officer had not specifically applied Section 145(3) but on the basis of discrepancies pointed out by her in her assessment order suggest the implied or deemed invocation of Section 145(3) of the Act. However, it is treated as a procedural lapse even the validity of addition cannot be affected. He relied upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Quality 224 ITR 77 (Patna) and M.V. Nagraja 70 ITD 318 (Bang.). The assessee was not maintaining proper books of account, stock register and also other serious defects and incriminating aspects as pointed out by the Assessing Officer towards major expenses. Accordingly, he confirmed the rejection of books of account. 3.1 The Assessing Officer made gross trading addition of Rs. 58,14,040/- in form of partial disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntained stock register at site, which is valued at the time of closing in every year, therefore, returned income should be accepted as such. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s Gupta K.N. Construction Co. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 524/JP/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the assessee's past history has been accepted and the Hon'ble Bench had confirmed the lump sum addition of Rs. 5 lacs on turnover of Rs. 12.32 crores, in which identical civil contractor work was completed. 6. At the outset, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and argued that the assessee is not maintained proper books of account and specific defect has been pointed out by the learned Assessing Officer under the various heads, therefore, order of the learned CIT(A) may be reverted. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee's turnover increased substantially compared to immediate preceding year. The G.P. has gone down slightly whatever discrepancies pointed out by the learned Assessing Officer without quoting Section 145(3) of the Act are sufficient to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A). 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Udpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) held that TDS was deducted and paid before the due date of return is allowable U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, Therefore, we delete the addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 13. The 4th ground of the assessee's appeal and ground No. VIII of the revenue's appeal are against not considering the agricultural income of Rs. 2,75,000/-, which was treated income from other sources. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 2,75,000/-. However, documents furnished regarding land holding revealed that the land did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, he gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue, which was responded by the assessee that this land was in the name of his father. He submitted two copies of nakalbandi regarding agricultural land and in both the copies, father's name of the assessee was appearing. Basically, this property was joint property in the name of family members. Father had given to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no agriculture income shown in the previous year. Then no adverse inference should be drawn that there is no agriculture income during the year. When the assessee filed the details of agriculture land holding, which are joint in the name of family members and later received in gift and sales bills, which were in the name of the assessee. The A.O. was not justified in brushing aside these as submitted by the assessee and he could not disprove and rebutted these evidences. Despite these evidences the A.O. altogether ignored. On the other hand, when the onus shifted to the A.O. she totally failed to discharge the same. The learned A.O. despite having all the relevant information's could not rebut the material available with him with the help of evidences. She proceeded only on suspicion. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.H.J. Naidu Vs. CIT 29 ITR (Nag.), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 32 ITR 56 (All.). All the addition deserve deletion on this submission alone. The A.O. neither speak a single work on the evidences filed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant on the grounds that the necessary evidences i.r.o. income of the assessee's son were not provided. However, while making such addition, she has not brought any positive things on record to substantiate her inference that the withdrawal made by appellant of Rs. 1,20,000/- itself, as such. Since the A.O. was suspecting the suppression of household expenses, therefore, it is felt that the onus was lies on her to prove the adverse conclusion made in this regard with cogent evidences and relevant information. In absence of any such exercise on her part, it is held that the addition made by the A.O. towards the household expenses is based on simply assumption and presumption only, which cannot be ratified under the given circumstances. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- made in this regard is hereby deleted. Consequently, this ground of appeal is upheld." 21. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the learned A.R. for the assessee contended that the learned Assessing Officer estimated the household withdrawals without any evidence collected through any inquiry. There was no specific instances of sup....