2021 (1) TMI 1329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has estimated the income of the assessee by adopting NP at 7.25% as against the NP declared by the assessee at 5.75% and 5.73% for the AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. The ld. AR has further submitted that for the AYs 2007-08 and 2008- 09, there was no claim of royalty and demurrage charges whereas for these two assessment years there is a payment of royalty and extra-ordinary item of demurrage due to non completion of the project within the time as per the contract between the parties. Thus, due to these two items and one of which being demurrage charges the NP for the year under consideration is substantially reduced in comparison to the earlier preceding year. He has fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be allowed after estimation of income. The ld. DR has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahu Construction (P.) Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 609 (Alld) wherein it was held that when NP is estimated after rejection of books of account then no deduction including depreciation is separately allowable. The ld. DR has referred a series of decisions on the point that in case of estimation of income by adopting NP rate no further deduction is allowable. Thus, the ld. DR has vehemently contended that miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are not maintainable as there is no apparent mistake in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ld. CIT(A) has made a reference of additional evidence sought to be filed by the assessee in support of extra-ordinary item of expenditure on account of demurrage charges and royalty payment. The ld. CIT(A) refused to admit the application for additional evidence on the ground that the same was not filed before the Assessing Officer. We further note that the Tribunal has reproduced the comparative NP declared by the assessee in Para 8 of the impugned order as under: Assmt Year Gross receipt Profit as P/La/c Net Profit Rate 2007-08 2,69,00,387.00 17,75,368.00 6.6 % 2008-09 4,98,20,201.00 31,44,682.00 6.32% 2009-10 4,44,16,951.00 25,55,430.80 5.75% 2010-11 4,37,59,063.00 25,08,842.00....