ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. P.L. REDDY & COMPANY
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE above appeals pertaining to one assessee are preferred by the Revenue for A.Ys. 2005 -06 to 2009 - 10. ITA No. 1143/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 305/Hyd/2010 are directed against different order of the CIT(A), Tirupati for A.Ys. 2005 -06 and 2006 -07, respectively. ITA Nos. 1313 to 1315/Hyd/2013 are directed
against different orders of the CIT(A) -IV, Hyderabad for A.Ys. 2007 -08 to 2009 -10. Since common issues
are involved in these appeals and all the appeals pertain to one assessee, they are clubbed and heard
together and are being disposed by this common order for the sake of convenience.
(2.) THE first common issues in ITA No. 305/Hyd/2010 and ITA Nos. 1313 to 1315/Hyd/2013 are common in nature which are follows:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee failed to produce tangible evidence in support of the expenditure claimed.
(3.) THE learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO has not compared the present case with that of M/s KMC Constructions but adopted the stand of ITAT only in estimating the income."
3. Briefly the facts are that during the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee produced few bills I vouchers, a substantial part of which were cash vouchers. When asked to produce complete bills to verify
the genuineness of the expenses claimed in the P&L Account, it was submitted by the assessee that all the
bills and vouchers were maintained and as required some of the bills maintained at Hyderabad and
Tirupati offices were produced on random basis. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing
Officer opined that the assessee is not maintaining proper bills and vouchers, little information submitted
by the assessee in piece meal manner was not sufficient to verify the business affairs of the assessee and
rejected the book results. While rejecting the books of account, following the decision of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of M/s KMC Constructions, the Assessing Officer estimated the income of
the assessee at 12.5% of the gross contract receipts before allowing depreciation.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that all the bills and vouchers are maintained at I site offices and bills for common expenditure were maintained at Hyderabad and Tirupati offices. As the Assessing
Officer asked to submit the bills/vouchers, all the bills/vouchers maintained at Hyderabad and Tirupati
offices were produced before the Assessing Officer along with available bills maintained at site offices
randomly. The assessee further submitted that though books of account and copies of all ledger extracts
with sample bills of site offices and all common bills maintained Hyderabad and Tirupati offices were
produced, the Assessing Officer rejected the books for the simple reason that some bills were not
produced. The assessee also brought out that similar treatment of rejection of books by the Assessing
Officer for the earlier assessment year 2006 -07 was rejected by the CIT (A), Tirupati vide order in Appeal
No. 355/Tr/Addl.CIT.Rg.6/Hyd/CIT(A)/TPT/09 -10 dated 27.11.2009 in their own case and the same was
not considered for the subject assessment year.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.