TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon issue is involved in all the appeals, therefore, all were heard together and we dispose of the same through this consolidated Order. The issue in appeals for the A.Ys. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2008-09 is decided as under. ITA.No. 1200/Del./2012 - A.Y. 2004-05 ITA.No.1199/Del./2012 - A.Y. 2003-04 & ITA.No.1201/Del./2012 - A.Y. 2008-09 3. All the appeals of the assessee are directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal, Dated 03.08.2011 for the above assessment years. 4. All the appeals of the assessee are time barred by 107 days. 5. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. It is contended in the application that the impugned order was received by the assessee on 24.09.2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for passing the order afresh. The A.O. asked the assessee to produce books of account supported by complete bills and vouchers. The A.O. noted that assessee produced bills for diesel and bitumen. No other bill was produced. The A.O, therefore, concluded that books of account are not verifiable for want of bills and vouchers for all the expenses. Hence, books were rejected. The A.O. again computed the business income of assessee by applying the N.P. rate of 8% on the gross receipts and again made addition of Rs. 31,67,480/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the application of N.P. rate of 8%. The Ld. CIT(A), however, directed that sales tax of Rs. 16,76,105/- deducted by the various Departments was not excluded from gross contract receipts for worki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government Departments. It is well known that for executing Government contracts, the profit margin is on lower side. The A.O. in his set aside proceedings while applying N.P. rate of 8% has not referred to any comparable cases for arriving at the decision to apply the N.P. rate of 8%. However, it is a fact that assessee despite in remand proceedings have not produced complete bills and vouchers in support of the books of account, therefore, the authorities below were justified in rejecting the book results declared by assessee as per books of account. Now the question is, Whether the application of N.P. rate of 8% is justified in the matter ? Learned Counsel for the Assessee has referred to comparative chart of profitability achieved as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed above, where the highest N.P. rate accepted by the Department was of 1.54%, we are of the view that the authorities below were not justified in applying the N.P. rate of 8% to estimate the profit of the assessee. In view of the above discussion and considering the history of the assessee, we set aside and modify the Orders of the authorities below and direct the A.O. to apply N.P. rate of 2% as against 8% for determining the income of the assessee. In view of the above, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 12. The issue is same in A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2008-09. In view of the above discussion in A.Y. 2004-05, we set aside and modify the Orders of the authorities below and direct the A.O. to apply profit rate of 2% as against 8% in order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 30.12.2008. The A.O. applied the N.P. rate of 8% and also taken interest on FDR at Rs. 82,249/- and Other Income of Rs. 79,71,797/-. The A.O. made the following additions as well. (i) Addition to capital account Rs. 3,70,000/-. (ii) Unexplained fresh loan of Rs. 69,96,000/- (iii) Unexplained fresh sundry creditor Rs. 58,40,621/-. 18.1. The A.O. determined the income of assessee at Rs. 3,26,37,042/-. The assessment order was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was partly allowed. 19. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that A.O. was not justified in passing the ex-parte assessment order because assessee was already assessed at Delhi and only a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er on set aside by the Ld. CIT-13, New Delhi, vide Order Dated 23.03.2009 under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, but, on the date of passing the impugned order at Karnal on 30.12.2008 the A.O. should have looked into the assessment order passed at Delhi in respect of the same assessee for the same assessment year. These peculiar facts clearly entitle the assessee that matter should be remanded back to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In view of the above circumstances and background of the case, particularly, when in preceding three years, we have directed the A.O. to apply N.P. rate of 2% only as against the N.P. rate of 8% determined by the A.O. and that contradictory Orders have been passed at Delhi and ....