2024 (8) TMI 923

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have annulled the assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2022. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing Ground No. 3 taken before him. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the Rectification Petition filed u/s 154 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 requesting to rectify the turnover of the firm of Rs. 22,31,24,260/- which is wrongly taken in the assessment order as Rs. 58,00,87,847/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in completing the assessment without providing sufficient opportunity to the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it is ascertained that during the year under consideration, the assessee is in receipt of civil contract receipts to the tune of Rs. 58,00,87,847/-. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee has not filed its return of income. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences and also explain why assessment should not be completed by considering the turnover of Rs. 58,00,87,847/-. Since the assessee has not filed any return, the Assessing Officer has completed best judgment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.03.2022 and determin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Form 26AS submitted that the main contractor M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd has paid total amount of Rs. 22,31,24,260/- and said payments are reported in Form 26AS for financial year 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016-17. Although they have booked various payments, but the same have been subsequently rectified by filing a corrected statement which can be noticed from Form 26AS, where the number of entries has been reversed. Further, although the appellant in reply to notice u/s 148 claims that it has received gross receipt of Rs. 58,00,87,847/-, but the said amount includes payment made to other entities and the assessee without noticing the revised Form 26AS has considered total payment received from main contractor including payment received by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the authorities below. The Assessing Officer estimated 8% profit on gross contract receipt of Rs. 58,00,87,847/-. The learned CIT (A) accepted the contention of the assessee for estimating 5% profit on gross contract receipts, however, directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee of gross contract receipt of Rs. 22,31,24,260/- based on Form 26AS filed for the relevant A.Y and any other relevant documents. It is the contention of the assessee that the turnover of the appellant firm for the impugned A.Y under consideration is only Rs. 22,31,24,260/- which is evident from the updated form 26AS filed for the relevant A.Y. We have gone through Form 26AS filed by the appellant for the A.Y 2016-17 and as per said form 26AS, ....