TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t receipts and addition of Rs. 50,64,828/-. The Learned CIT(A) has not considered the material supplies by the main contractor namely Progressive Construction Ltd. 3.(a) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the A.O was justified in not following the principle of consistency and departing from earlier assessment orders and holding interest income as assessable under the Head 'Income from Other Sources' and not under the Head 'Business' as claimed. (b) The basis for upholding the conclusion of the ITO by the CIT(A) that the assessee gave up business in this year is wrong. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there could be several sources under the Head "Business" (c) Consequentially the disallowance of the claim of Rs. 70,22,551/- on account of bad debts is also unjustified. 4. The lower Authorities have unfairly disallowed the claim of expenditure of Rs. 99,73,337/- incurred towards interest. The disallowances are based on suspicion, surmise and conjectures, that there could not have been so many interest payments not liable to TDS. It is not their case that provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) are applicable. 5. (a) Learned CIT(A) and A.O are not justified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e margin of 5% after which the appellant net margin of 5%. Further, the main contractor Supplied material of Rs. 3,84,37,168/- which was recovered from the bills and therefore the net value of contract after reducing the material cost supplied by the main contractor is only Rs. 1,22,11,115/-. If the material supply is removed, the profit rate admitted by the appellant worked out much lower. 3.2 The AO rejected the contention of the appellant on the following grounds:- (i) As per the work order issued by the contractor Oil 2.4.2012, the scope of work is new site formation, clearance, excavation and earth moving and it does not involve any construction or building activity. (ii) The appellant did not furnish copies of the bills raised by her on the main contractor even when specifically asked for. (iii) Memorandum of Payment-1" issue by the contractor does give any information about material provided to the appellant being subcontractor. (iv) Copy of measurement book was not furnished by the appellant. (v) "Abstract note" of M/s. PCL mentioned that Rs. 3,84,37,168/- has been debited as against material issued but no details of material like description, quantity and date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore the ground of appeal is dismissed". 6. Learned authorised representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the assessee has been assessed at very high rate of 10% deposits the fact that she is only a sub-contractor wherein the margin does not cross maximum rate of 3 to 4%. We find no merit in the assessee's instant arguments since both the lower authorities have already granted her substantive relief in estimating the impugned profit element @10% despite the fact that she has not maintained any books, details of sub-contracts (project-wise) corresponding and all other overhead expenses. We sought to know from the learned counsel about the assessee's alleged regular business activity in civil construction business wherein he failed to throw any light. We therefore hold that the assessee does not deserve any further relief over and above the impugned profit estimation @10%. Ordered accordingly. 7. The assessee's next substantive ground seeks to reverse both the lower authorities' action inter alia disallowing bad debts of Rs. 70,22,551/-, interest expenses of Rs. 99,73,337/- followed by un-explained cash credits of Rs. 50,42,125; respecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be agricultural income, gifts, domestic savings etc. Since, none of them are assesses, their creditworthiness is not verifiable. Though in few cases pattadar pass books were enclosed, there is no evidence that agricultural activity was in fact carried out by them and agricultural income was earned by them. Further, in respect of domestic savings and maturity of deposits etc., no evidences were furnished to verify the claims. (iv) The unsecured loans have been received by bearer cheques, the genuineness of which is not verified. (v) The claim that unsecured loans have been subsequently repaid along with Interest is of little relevance, since the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors have not been proved. 8.2 In view of the above, the AO held that the onus has not been discharged by the appellant in terms of provisions of Section 68 and added back the entire unsecured loans taken in the current year of Rs. 50,42,125/-. 8.3 The above action of the AO was contested in Ground No. 4 of appeal, which is as under:- a) The AO is not justified in assessing the amount of Rs. 5,42,125/- as unsecured loans from as many as 70 individuals. b) The assessee has....