TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pushing technique with two partners, namely, Shri Ravi Kant Singhal and Shri J.P. Singhal having profit ratio of 30% and 70% respectively. It filed its return of income on 30th September, 2012 declaring the income at Rs. 1,58,13,780/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that as against the total gross receipts of Rs. 22,89,71,802/- shown by the assessee in the Profit & Loss Account, the Form No.26AS shown such receipt at Rs. 23,33,93,490/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference, the AO made addition of Rs. 44,21,680/- to the total income of the assessee. Similarly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,02,99,973/- being 15% of the purchases shown by the assessee at Rs. 6,86,66,489/- on the ground that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the addition of Rs. 1889 /- towards payment of interest on TDS. (IV) In the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of Rs. 44,21,688/- towards undisclosed gross receipts to Rs. 4,94,250/-. (V) That the appellant craves, leave to add, amend or modify the ground(s) of appeal at any time." 5. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered various decisions cited by both the sides. So far as the first ground of appeal by the Revenue relating to deletion of Rs. 1,02,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r has made the addition of Rs. 77,79,975/- under this head on the ground that the appellant has not produced the details of labour and wages. During the course of appellate proceedings, in exercise of my powers under section 250(4) of the Act, vide order sheet entry dated 05.10.2016 the appellant was asked to produce all the major bills & vouchers relating to labour payment and muster roll which was produced by the appellant vide letter dated 24.11.2016. Further, I find merit in the contention of the appellant that the labour and wages payment is 22.65% of the gross receipt which is similar in previous A.Y. and there is an increase in the gross profit ratio from 11.60% in A.Y. 2011-12 to 10.90% in A.Y. 2012-13. Further, the net profit of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in our opinion, is not proper. For claiming any expenditure as allowable business expenditure, the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the genuineness of such expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. Since the assessee, in the instant case, has failed to discharge the onus cast on it before the AO and the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition merely on the basis of the statements made by the assessee without giving any opportunity to the AO for his comments, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of gross receipt of Rs. 23,33,93,490/- the interest income is of Rs. 32,18,001/-. This interest income has already been shown by the appellant in the P&L account in the following manner: - Particulars As per 26AS As per P&L account Remarks Interest from Dena Bank 1727620 1833081 The appellant has shown excess income of Rs. 105461 Interest from PNB 1490381 996131 The appellant has shown less income by Rs. 494250 During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant was asked to explain the same and in response it is explained that this income of A.Y. 2012-13 has already been shown by the appellant in A.Y. 2015-16 in the following manner:- A.Y. 2012-13 Particulars Amount Inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per P&L account of Rs. 22,89,71,802/- the appellant has submitted the above mentioned chart with the copy of ledger account of A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. This fact is verified from the ledger and account of the appellant that the difference is due to the system of accounting and regarding the OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BED VI JAISALMER the difference is arising as appellant has already shown the amount of Rs. 27,10,369/- in A.Y. 2011-12 under gross receipt. Further, the difference of Rs. 1,27,399/- in relation to EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BORDER FENCING DIV-IV. CPWD THARAD has already been shown in. A.Y. 2011-12 under gross receipt. Besides this, the difference in relation to JAISALMER CENTRAL DIVISION and EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BORDER FEN....