Decided on May 16,2014



- (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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.