Subodh Gupta, Delhi V. ACIT, circle-62(1), New Delhi

ITA 1742/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4413 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 44AD; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH RI O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO .1742 /DE L/ 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 SHRI SUBODH GUPTA, D - 3, EAST JYOTI NAGAR, SHAHDARA, DELHI, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 62(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AEVPG4646M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI J.B. SHARMA, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI N.K. BANSAL, SR.DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A .M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 28/02/2018 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 20, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A) ] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR , 2014 - 15, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. ACIT HAS ARBITRARILY AND ILLEGALLY REJECTED OUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS TAKEN THE WRONG AND ILLEGAL VIEW OF SECTION 44AD OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE S CASE. 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ACIT IS IN FACT NOT THE ASSESSMENT DONE BUT IS THE COERCIVE APPROACH OF ASSESSMENT AND BURDENING THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HIGH TAX DEMAND. IN FACT, IF WE GO THROUGH THE NOTE SHEET OF THE CASE, YOUR HIGHNESS WOULD COME TO KNOW THAT THE LD. ACIT HAVING SATISFIED WITH EVERYTHING SUBJECT TO SOME UNVERIFIABLE SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH IS BEYOND ASSESSEE S CONTROL, DATE OF HEARING 31.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.02.2019 2 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 LEVYING FALSE CHARGES OF NOT MAINTAINING THE STOCK RECORDS WHICH IS ALMOST OF NEGLIGIBLE VALUE IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE (I.E. 0.43 % OF TURNOVER) WHICH IS NOTHING BUT SCRAP/CONSUMABLES AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF PROPERNESS OF WAGES REGISTER. LD. ACIT WITH HIS PRE - MIND SET HAS DECIDED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER THE PREVIOUS FOOTING WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WITH WHICH THE ASS ESSEE WAS NEVER CONVINCED AND IT APPEARS THAT IT HAS BECOME THE ROUTINE MATTER TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE S CASE BY APPLYING THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 AD OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DESPITE OF THE GOOD INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL LEVELS IN THE PRE SENT CIRCLE OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS ON RECORD. 3. THAT CIT (APPEALS) - XX ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. ACIT (AFTER ALLOWING ONLY PARTLY RELIEF BY REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE OF NET PROFIT FROM 8% TO 5% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND DEDUCTING THERE FROM THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 20,09,838.00) WHICH IS APPARENT FROM FACE AND ASSESSING THE INCOME IN THE TUNE OF LD. ACIT U/S.44AD OF I.T. ACT,1961 WHICH IS OUT OF SCOPE AS ASSESSEE S CASE IS DULY AUDITED U/S. 44AB OF I.T. ACT, 1961. THE PARTLY RELIEF PROVIDED BY THE CIT (A) AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE IS NOT ENOUGH TO GIVE HIM (ASSESSEE) THE PROPER JUSTICE AS IS LAWFULLY AVAILABLE TO HIM (ASSESSEE). 4. THAT, ONE THING WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO BRING IN NOTICE THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.L94C OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AND NATURE OF BUSINESS IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED ALL RECEIPTS ARE COVERED UNDER TDS DEDUCTION @1% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS WHICH IS THE BAROMETER OF THE ASSESSEE S EARNINGS AS PER STATUTE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE INTENTION OF LAW ASSESSEES S INCOME NEEDS TO BE CONFINED ONLY UPTO THE LEVEL OF TDS DEDUCTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5. THAT ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINES S AT GREATER NOIDA WHICH IS KNOWN FOR ITS COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW OF SUCH NON AVOIDABLE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTION OF CIT(APPEALS) - XX IN ESTIMATING INCOME IN TUNE OF LD. ACIT SUBJECTS TO CERTAIN RELIEF AS PROVIDED HEREINABOVE IS ON HIGHER SIDE WHICH NEEDS YOUR INTERFERENCE TO BREAK SUCH BENCHMARK. 6. IT IS HIGHLY HARASSING AND UNLAWFUL TO ARBITRARY ESTIMATE THE INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND CHANGES IN VOLUME OF ASSESSEE S BUSINESS IN THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW WHE REIN THE TURNOVER HAS CONSIDERABLY INCREASED FROM RS. 2,30,98,823.00 (IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR) TO RS. 33,05,93,841.00, THE GROSS PROFIT FROM 3.97% (IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR) TO 4.08% AND THE NET PROFIT FROM 1.12% (IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR) TO 1.50%. THIS FACT OF SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE LD. ACIT, CIRCLE 62(1) NEW DELHI. 7. TO SUBSTANTIATE WE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR KIND ATTENTION TO CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS IN THE C ASE OF: 3 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 (A). HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS JOGENDRA SINGH & CO.(2014) 361 ITR 78 DATED 06.01.2014, (B). HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF K.KANNAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - I, DATED 01.10.2013, (C). HON BLE ITAT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I VS. M/S. SAHU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. SAHU THEATRE BUILDING DATED 08.010.2013, (D). HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJENDER SINGH DATED 22.05.2015, (E). HON BLE ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF ACIT KOLKATA VS . M/S. GOURANGLAL CHATTERJEE CONSTRUCTION P LTD. DATED 20.01.2016 AND (F ). HON BLE ITAT, AHEMDABAD IN THE CASE QUALITY CONSTRUCTION PROP. VINEET DEORARI VS. ACIT, SURAT DATED 29.10.2010. LASTLY, WE HAVE TO EXPRESS OUR FEELINGS THAT SUCH TYPE OF HARD ASSESSMENT ARE NOT ONLY ILLEGAL BUT ARE DEVIATING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL THEORIES OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE ASSESSEE FRIENDLY. THUS, WE CAN SAY THAT THE LD. ACIT CIRCLE 62(1), NEW DELHI ASSESSED THE CASE ARBITRARILY, ILLEGALLY, BEYOND THE AMBIT OF LAW AND AGAINST THE LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHEREIN THE PARTLY RELIEF GIVEN BY CIT (A), NEW DELHI WOULDN T SUFFICE TO PROVIDE THE AVAILABLE LEGAL PLATFORM TO THE ASESSEE. RELIEF CLAIMED: THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ACIT CIRCLE 62(1), NE W DELHI AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY CIT (APPEALS) - XX NEEDS BE DISOWNED AND BE SET ASIDE AND ASSESSEE S RETURN AS SUBMITTED BE ACCEPTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE RESERVE HIS RIGHTS TO PROVIDE SOME OTHER INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT THE TI ME OF HEARING. 2. B RIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR AND HAS W ORKED MAINLY FOR GREATER NOIDA A UTHORITY (UTTAR PRADESH). FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 13/09/201 4 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 49,27,220/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUARY NOTICE S UNDER THE INCOME - TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT ) WERE ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE LOW NET PROFIT, UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES, UNVERIFIE D LABOUR CHARGES, NON - RELIABLE VALUATION OF WORK IN PROGRESS, NON - MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER AND OTHER DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DETERMINED THE INCOME AT THE RATE OF THE 8% ON THE GROSS RECEIP T FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS OF RS. 33,05,93,841 / - , WHICH WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.2,64, 47,507/ - AND 3% OF THE SUPPLY RECEIPT OF RS.28,54, 900 / - , WHICH WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.85,647/ - . I N THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER R EDUCING THE PROFIT SHOWN OF RS.50,27, 221/ - BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME, MADE NET ADDITION OF RS. 2,15,05, 933/ - . ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER, REDUCE D THE RATE OF NET PROFIT FROM CONTRACT WORK FROM 8% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO 5% AND FURTHER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION. IN CASE OF RECEIPT FROM SUPPLY, HE CONFIRMED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 3%. IN THIS MANNER , HE REDUCED THE TOTAL ADDITION FROM RS. 2, 15,05,933/ - TO RS.92,78, 280/ - . AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION SUSTAIN ED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E T RIBUNAL. 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH COPY OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DETERM INING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%, HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE OF STATUTORY NATURE. LIST OF SUCH EXPENDITURE SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SL. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (INR) 1. WORK CONTRACT TAX 1,37,33,756.00 2. TESTING EXPENSES 43,519.00 3. TENDER FEES 65,370.00 5 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 4. BANK CHARGES 45,886.96 5. INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL 4,17,817.00 6. INSURANCE 77,060.00 7. PROFESSIONAL & LEGAL FEES 2,38,596.00 8. DEPRECIATION 20,09,838.00 9. AUDIT FEES 2,00,000.00 TOTAL 1,68,31,842.96 4. T HE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ABOVE STATUTORY EXPENSES ARE ALLOWED OUT OF THE PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8% DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE TAXABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 5. FURTH ER , THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH DATED 20/01/2016 IN THE CASE OF ACI T VS . M/S GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE C ONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED , WHEREIN NET PROFIT ESTIMATED AT THE RATE OF 8% , WAS REDUCED TO 2.5% AFTER ALLOWING STATUTORY EXPENSES LIKE DEPRECIATION INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL, ETC. H E ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL, AH EMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF Q UALITY C ONSTRUCTION IN ITA NO. 4544/AHD . /2007 AND O THER S AND SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE SAID CASE THE TRIBUNAL CONFINE D THE NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 3.25% OF THE RECEIPT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO REFERRED TO DECISION DATED 22/05/2015 OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT - 21 VS RAJENDER SINGH, WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL CONFIRMING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 1.94% ESTIMATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEFECTS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE 6 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON THE ISSUE OF NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED FINDING OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED FURTHER, THUS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% ON THE WORKS CONTRACT SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND NET PROFIT RATE OF THE 3% ON SUPPLY CONTRACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MI GHT BE SUSTAINED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS FAR AS REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED , HE HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE , WHICH COULD BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: ( I ) N ET PROFIT RATE DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS LOWER THAN ASSESSEE S CARRYING SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS . ( II ) T HE PURCHASES MADE FROM 5 PARTIES LISTED ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COULD NOT BE VERIFIED DURING ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE A CT AND EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THOSE PARTIES TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ( III ) EXPENSES FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL SUCH AS TARCOL OF RS. 10,17,307 / - AND RS.9,49,905/ - WAS PURCHASED FROM SONY TRADERS AND PAYMENT OF WHICH WAS MADE IN CASH RANGING FROM RS. 15,000 / - TO 19,500 / - ON DAY - TO - DAY BASIS WHICH WAS AGAINST NORMS OF NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE. ( IV ) LABOUR/SALARY EXPENSES REMAINED NON - VER IFIED IN ABSENCE OF COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS IN THE MUSTER ROLL AND SALARY REGISTER . 7 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 ( V ) STOCK REGISTER WAS NOT MAINTAINED ( VI ) N ONE OF THE BILLS/ VOUCHERS RELATED TO PURCHASE BEA R ANY MARK/EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE MATERIAL ( VII ) N ONE OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS RELATED TO PURCHASE BE A R ANY MARK OF EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS EITHER AT THE SITE OF WORK OR GO DOWN OF THE ASSESSEE ( VIII ) T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE DETAILS OF PROJECT WISE MATERIAL UTILIZATION 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL COULD NOT CONTRADICT THE ABOVE FI NDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DEFECT P OINTED OUT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN OUR OPINION, N ON - VERIFICATION OF CREDITOR S LEDGER ACCOUNT AND NON - MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER RAISE SERIOUS DOUBTS ON THE AMOU NT OF PROFIT WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE REPORTED ITS REVENUE AND PROFIT FROM THE PROJECTS FOLLOWING THE PERCENTILE COMPLETION METHOD. THE LD. COUNSEL IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS CONTESTED THE ISSUE OF A LLOWING STATUTORY EXPENSES LIKE, DEPRECIATION ETC . OUT OF THE 8% GROSS PROFIT RATE ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT NOT CONTESTED THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . IN VIE W OF UNCONTROVERTED DEFECTS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WE DON T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE LD . CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY , WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AS FAR AS SUSTAINING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% ON WORKS CONTRACT SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND 3% RATE ON SUPPLY , BY THE 8 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 LD. CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE FINDING OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED FINDING OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF HIS PREDECESSOR, THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE PRO FIT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNDER : 4.3.5 AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS ALMOST SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) IN A.Y. 2012 - 13, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IS UPHELD AS THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN JUSTIFIED REASONS FOR THE SAME. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND APPROVED RATES AND THE REASONS OF FALL IN THE APPROVED RATES DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH ABDUL REHMAN & BROS. V. CIT 210 ITR 406 BESIDES THIS, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD IN THIS YEAR ALSO THAT THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT OF WORKS CONTRACT WHICH IS TAKEN BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER @ 8% IS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE CALCULATED @ 5% REDUCED BY THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.20,09,838/ - AND THE INCOME FROM SUPPLY WHICH IS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER @ 3% DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. HOWEVER, NO RELIEF IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO T HE APPELLANT FOR THE WORK CONTRACT TAX' SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT WHICH IS A PART OF TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT AND ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS REJECTED, THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS TO BE MADE ON THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT. RELIANCE IS AL SO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF KACHWALA GEMS V. CIT 288 ITR 10. IN THIS LIGHT, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS TO BE WORKED OUT AS UNDER: - (A) GROSS RECEIPTS FROM WORK CONTRACT - RS.33,05,93,841/ - PROFIT @ 5% ON THE ABOVE - RS . 1,62,29,692/ - (B) GROSS RECEIVES FROM SUPPLY - RS.28,54,900/ - PROFIT @ 3% OF THE ABOVE - RS.85,647/ - LESS: DEPRECIATION - RS.20,09,838/ - TOTAL INCOME - (16229692+85647) - 2009838 - RS.1,43,05,501/ - LESS: INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT - RS.50,27,221/ - ADDITION TO BE MADE IN THE TOTAL INCOME - RS.92,78,280/ - HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.2,15,05,933/ - IS RESTRICTED TO RS.92,78,280/ - AND THE APPELLANT WILL GET RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 9 ITA NO. 1742/DEL/2018 10. THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROU GHT ON RECORD ANY ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL, WHERE THIS NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 HAS BEEN DISTURBED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY ORDER OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE FORUM, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 HAS BECOME FINAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN FO LLOWING THE OWN COMPARISON OF PROFIT RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT FROM WORKS CONTRACT AS WELL AS FROM SUPPLY CONTRACT. THE CASE LAWS MENTIONED BY THE LD. COUNSEL CANNOT BE RELIED FOR ESTIMATING PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , WHEN COMPARATIVE PROFIT RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS ARE AVAILABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF THE PROFIT ALSO. 11. THE GROUNDS OF THE AP PEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 T H FEBRUARY , 201 9 . S D / - S D / - [ BHAVNESH SAINI ] [O.P. KANT] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 5 T H FEBRUARY , 2019 . RK / - [D.T.D.S] COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI