TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Construction Work and undertaking development of residential flats and shops. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 10,53,339/-. There was a survey action u/s. 133A of the Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 03.09.2013 during which statement of the two Partners were recorded wherein it was admitted profit element of Rs. 3,51,09,500/- in respect of different construction projects carried out by the assessee Firm. It is thereafter a retraction statement was filed by way o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....years The appellant had acted as "contractor only in this project. If the addition of Rs 28,00,000/- is made to the declared profit, it would be increased by Rs. 46 lacs and would be about 32% of the consideration received from this contract. (b) Samved-II of Visnagar Town. This project consisted of one storey tenaments and the contract was awarded to the appellant firm by the plot owners and the project was completed in F.Y. 2011-12 and related profit was already declared in the relevant assessment year 2012-13 The appellant had acted as "contractor" only in this project. If the addition of Rs. 43,20,000/- is made to the declared profit, it would be increased by Rs. 75 lacs and would be about 30% of the consideration rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has been contended that the project was only for 48 commercial units whereas the profit of 72 units had been taken by the A.O on the basis of disclosure made. It has also been mentioned that the Joint CIT has also issued direction u/s 144A of the Act to exclude the profit of 24 units worked out at Rs 6.00.000/- (f) Samved I & II at Kheralu These two projects were undertaken by the appellant as "contractor" and the work was awarded by the plot owners. This project was also completed in AY 2012-13 and the related profits had already been offered. It has been contended that if the addition of Rs. 9,80,000/- is made to the total profit declared, then it would be about Rs. 16 lacs and the profit would be about 28% of the tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and also given direction u/s. 150(1) to telescoping effect to the other Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2016-17 by observing as follows: "....5.5 Considering all the facts as brought out by the A.O. in his assessment order, facts as appraised on the basis of documents filed during the course of appellate proceedings, the retraction from the disclosure of income of Rs 3,51,09,500/- made on the basis of impounded document as discussed in the assessment order is held to be rightly made as it contained several factual mistakes which had been pointed out through written submissions now made during the course of appellate proceedings and elaborately discussed as above. The mistakes as pointed out by the appellant are:- (i) It was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....818/-. The A.O. is accordingly directed to give the telescopic effect to the AYs 2009-10 to A.Y.2016-17 by taking appropriate action as permissible u/s. 150(1) of the Act by re- opening the assessments." 4. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following solitary Ground of Appeal: 1. Whether, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (appeals) CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the total addition at Rs. 15,99,787/- for entire period i.e A.Y 2009-10 to 2016-17 and Rs. 1,82,818/- for the assessment year under consideration as against the total addition of Rs. 3,45,09,500/-. 5. Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar appearing for the Revenue strongly supported the order passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Act is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law, vide Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)" 8. Further the assessee by way of an Affidavit dated 08.12.2014 retracted the statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act. The assessee also filed detailed submissions of each Projects undertaken by the assessee firm. However the same was also not considered by the Assessing Officer. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2002) 253 ITR 454 held as follows: "In the present case, we find that Commissioner (A....