TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. However, the notice under section 142(1) was issued and assessee was asked to file the explanation related to the discrepancies in receipts declared in the P&L Account amount to Rs. 4,15,65,960/- whereas in Form 26AS, the same was shown at Rs. 8,99,55,166/-, on which TDS has been deducted under section 194C of the Act. The assessee explained that out of the total receipt in form 26AS the gross receipts related to parties, M/s Ravi Developers amount to Rs. 8,35,82,280/- and Mrs. Madhu Doshi, Prop of M/s Shree Developers amount to Rs. 63,72,886/-. On perusal of the books of account, the Ld.AO noticed that the assessee only declared Rs. 4,15,56,960/- received from M/s Ravi Developers and at Nil from M/s Shree Developers, whereby the amount of Rs. 4,83,89,206/- was remained unexplained and the difference of the gross receipt in Form 26AS and the books of account of the assessee amount to Rs. 4,83,89,206/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g application of appellant's undisclosed income of Rs. 47,16,72,184/- and its sister concern's undisclosed income of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-( representing booking advance received for flats by the appellant). The assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal that 10% of the on money received in respect of Prabhadevi Project should be taxed in the current year and remaining should be taxed in the year of Project completed. But the assessing officer has rejected the plea and added entire amount. Hence facts of the assessee case are different that of the above case as not matching with the facts of present case. 2. CIT Vs. President Industries: The facts of the above case is not matching with the facts of present case as in this case there was a survey operation and in that survey from the Excise registers the AD has found that the sales to the extent of Rs. 29.01,300/- was not disclosed. Later the AO has added the entire amount but the Hon'ble ITAT restricted the addition to the GP shown by the assessee as it has to meet expenses such as cost of material sold and manufacturing/Trading related cost and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 01.12.1994 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been reversed as no contract was executed during the year and no service was provided to the concerned party in respect of the said amount of Rs 4,95,73,290/-. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,17,28,833/- was further received from Ravi Developers in the F.Y. 2017-18 on execution of work contract and duly recorded in the books of account. Regarding the remaining amount, the appellant has submitted that the same has been accounted as closing debit balance in the party, i.e., Ravi Developers' ledger a/c till the F.Y. 18-19 and shall be recorded in the books as and when contract will be executed. 6.10 As regards to contract receipt of Rs. 65,72,806/- from Shree Developers Prop M/s Madhu Doshi, appellant has claimed that sales booked by M/s Shree Developers Prop M/s Madhu Doshi in the F.Y. 2015-16 was reversed by us as no contract was executed during the year. However, Shree developers has not given the same treatment in her books of A/c 6.11 Here it is pertinent to note that in reply to notice u/s 133(6) both the parties have confirmed that they had executed the contracts from the appellant firm and also subsequently made the payments as well in appellant bank acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,89,206 which comes to Rs. 43,55,028. 6.13 In view of above discussion, addition made on account of suppressed contract receipt is restricted to Rs. 43,55,028 and accordingly, ground of appeal is partly allowed." 5. The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the following orders. a. Sohan Lal Aggarwal vs ACIT, Circle 62(1), New Delhi (Delhi-Trib) (2021) 130 taxmann.com 380 for the proposition that - "5. It is a settled proposition of law that in case of difference between the assessees books of account and as per the TDS certificate, then on the said difference, the only embedded portion of the profits is to be taken into consideration and addition is to be made thereon. There are number of judicial pronouncements by which the principle to this effect has been laid down that the total sale cannot represent as the profit of the assessee. The bet profit rate has to be adopted and once the net profit is adopted it cannot be said that there is perversity of approach. Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, we do not find any justification in making the addition of the entire turnover to the income of the assessee. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumsta....