Case Law Details
M/s. Dayanand Contractor Vs. The Pr. CIT (ITAT Delhi)
Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Rohtak dated 30th March, 2016 for the A.Ys. 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, challenging the order under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. Both the parties mainly argued in A.Y. 2009-20 10 and have stated that the issue is same in A.Y. 2010-2011. Therefore, for the purpose of disposal of both the appeals, we decide the appeal for the A.Y. 2009-20 10 as under.
ITA.No. 2806/Del./2016- A.Y. 2009-2010:
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee is a firm. Return of income for the assessment year under appeal was not filed by the assessee as prescribed under section 139 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. recorded reasons under section 147 of the I.T. Act on 2nd November, 2012 and notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee- firm. In response to notice under section 148, assessee filed return of income on 11thMarch, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 2,15,986. The case was selected for scrutiny and A.O. issued questionnaire. The assessee furnished written reply. The A.O. found that assessee is deriving income from contractor-ship business. Various details as called for were filed. Books of account and bills/ vouchers were produced and test-checked by the A.O. The A.O. after disallowing certain expenses computed the income at Rs. 3,66,860 vide order dated 21st February, 2014 under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
very helpful case thank you