Case Law Details

Case Name : Income Tax Officer Vs M/s. St. Joseph Construction (ITAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : I.T.A No. 1057/Kol/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/12/2011
Related Assessment Year : 2008-2009
Courts : All ITAT (5510) ITAT Kolkata (442)

ITO Vs M/s. St. Joseph Construction (ITAT Kolkata)- Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the assessee’s submissions directed the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts of the assessee-firm since the assessee had concealed huge contractual receipts to the tune of  Rs. 54,55,543/-. He also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit @ 8% on the entire receipts of  Rs. 1,12,29,347/- equivalent to  Rs. 8,98,348/-, net of all expenses including salary and interest payments to partners.

No interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) as he has directed the Assessing Officer to compute net profit at 8% on the entire receipts including the receipts found to have been concealed by the assessee. In any case, the entire receipts, as added by the Assessing Officer, could not be added because it is not disputed that the impugned amount had been received from the contract work carried on by the assessee. It is not the case of Assessing officer that the source of impugned sum of  Rs. 54,55,543/- was other than the business. Therefore, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and reject the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue. 

ORDER

Per Shri S.V. Mehrotra, Accountant Member

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 18.05.2011 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the relevant assessment year, the assessee-firm derived income from business of civil construction. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of  Rs. 68,970/-. The Assessing Officer noticed from the audited Balance sheet and Profit & Loss A/c. the total receipt shown by the firm was at  Rs. 57,73,804/-. In support of its receipts, the assessee- firm had filed TDS certificates received from Missionaries of Charity, which certified making a total payment of  Rs. 57,73,804/- during the financial year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer observed that while examining the 26AS of the assessee-firm generated from the Departmental data base, it was found that the assessee-firm received the following amounts during the financial year 2007-08 from different organizations and TDS had been deducted accordingly as per chart below :-

SN TAN Name      of     the

concern         from

whom      payment

received            for
construction work

Amount paid by the concern to the assessee- firm during               the

financial        year

TDS
by the assessee- firm 2007-08
  1. 1.
CALJ03089C Jesus and Mary

West          Bengal

Education Society

Rs.4,55,543/- Rs.10,323/-
  1. 2.
CALMO3197F Missionaries      of

Charity

Rs.57,73,804/- Rs.1,30,628/-
3. CALTO4029E The              Roma

Catholic     Diocese
of Krishnanagar

Rs.50,00,000/- Rs.1,08,158/-
Total Rs. 1,12,29,347/- Rs.2,49, 109/-

From these information’s, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had not disclosed receipts totaling to  Rs. 54,55,543/- in its accounts. The Assessing Officer issued summons under section 131 to the Accountant of The Roman Catholic Diocese of Krishnanagar, Nadia, who produced following documents before the Assessing Officer :-

(1) Work order of The Roman Catholic Diocese of Krishnanagar given to assessee vide Memo No. CM(K) 2006 dated 20.02.2006,

(2) Photocopy of TDS certificate;

(3) Photocopy of payment certificate for the financial year 2007-08;

(4) Provisional receipt copy of submission of TDS return in Form No. 26Q.

From these documents, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee- firm had received an amount of  Rs. 50,00,000/- from The Roman Catholic Diocese of Krishnanagar during the financial year 2007-08, but the assessee- firm did not disclose this gross receipt as well as income to the revenue. The Assessing Officer has also examined the date of issue of cheque by The Roman Catholic Diocese of Krishnanagar, and also deposit in the assessee’s Bank a/c., the details of which are given at pages 5-6 of assessment order and from these details, he pointed out that the partners of the assessee- firm admitted that an additional amount was received besides the amount specified earlier in the return filed for the assessment year 2008-09. He has reproduced the details from the written submissions of the partners. The Assessing Officer also examined the purchases made by the assessee and from all the details after considering the assessee’s explanation concluded that the assessee concealed the receipts from different organizations amounting to  Rs. 54,55,53/- and made an addition of  Rs. 54,55,543/-. He also observed that the details of purchases furnished by the assessee from Hindustan Hardware, Krishnanagar, Nadia amounting to  Rs. 17,56,021/- were genuine and, therefore, no action was called for on this account.

3. Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the assessee’s submissions directed the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts of the assessee-firm since the assessee had concealed huge contractual receipts to the tune of  Rs. 54,55,543/-. He also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit @ 8% on the entire receipts of  Rs. 1,12,29,347/- equivalent to  Rs. 8,98,348/-, net of all expenses including salary and interest payments to partners.

4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of Assessing Officer.

5. We have considered the submissions of ld. D.R. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) as he has directed the Assessing Officer to compute net profit at 8% on the entire receipts including the receipts found to have been concealed by the assessee. In any case, the entire receipts, as added by the Assessing Officer, could not be added because it is not disputed that the impugned amount had been received from the contract work carried on by the assessee. It is not the case of Assessing officer that the source of impugned sum of  Rs. 54,55,543/- was other than the business. Therefore, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and reject the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (28342)
Type : Judiciary (12648)
Tags : ITAT Judgments (5689)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts