ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Jai Prakash, New Delhi

ITA 1817/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 181720114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T R TALWAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 44AD; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITO, WARD 26 (3), VS. SHRI JAI PRAKASH, NEW DELHI. WZ 3, ASALAT PUR, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AKTPP0318D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.R. TALWAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 17.02.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,99,210/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 3 1.07.2005 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.3,12,970/-. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED UN DER SECTION 143(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT ON 17.01.2006. SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FINALIZED ON 27.12.2007. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 2 OFFICER THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND NOT MAINTAINING B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. INCOME IS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF THE RECEIPTS AS PER PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCE PT THE SAME AND TREATED THE AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND ASSESSED UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE C IT (A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE AR AND THE INITIAL OBJECTIONS OF THE AO REGARDING A DMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLA NT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF AND RETURNING THE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION HE WAS NOT KEEPING THE COMPLETE POSTAL ADDR ESS OF CONTRACTEES AND SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE GATHERING OF B ASIC DATA REQUIRED TIME AS THE PERSONS ENGAGED IN SUPPLY OF L ABOUR ARE MOSTLY FROM BIHAR AND OTHER STARES, WHO MIGRATED AN D OR CHANGED THEIR RESIDENCE. WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY, THE APPELLANT GATHERED THE THEN ADDRESSES OF THESE PARTIES AND FI NALLY FURNISHED ALL THESE ADDRESSES BEFORE CLOSURE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE COLLECTION OF BASIC DATA TOOK TIME , WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM SUBMITTING FULL AND COMPLETE DET AILS AT A TIME THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS FILED MOST OF THE DET AILS IN PIECEMEAL ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE A O. FURTHERMORE, IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE DETAIL THAT AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE UNDERSIGNED ARE PRODUCED FOR PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE. THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE IS SUCH THAT THESE DO NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY NEW PRINCIPLE OR LEAD TO ANY N EW FACTS REQUIRING FRESH INVESTIGATION AND BY FILING THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SEEKING TO MAKE ANY FR ESH LINE OF ENQUIRY. THESE EVIDENCES ONLY ENABLE THE UNDERSIGNE D TO PASS AN ORDER ON THIS ISSUE ONE WAY OR OTHER. ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 3 4.1 FOR AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT IS IMPLICIT IN C OMING TO A PROPER CONCLUSION. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THOUG H THE RULES REQUIRE NEW EVIDENCE TO BE ADMITTED ONLY WHERE THER E IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO PRESE NT SUCH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO, IT IS CONSIDERED NOT ONLY F AIR BUT JUSTIFIED, WHERE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ITSELF CON SIDERS SUCH EVIDENCE NECESSARY. WHERE THERE IS OMISSION TO SUBM IT PART OF DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO, THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED MERELY BY DRAWING AN ADVERSE INFER ENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO FURNISH CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO A PUNITIVE MEASURE. THE APPEL LATE AUTHORITY MAY WELL UNDERTAKE TO MAKE GOOD SUCH OMIS SION. THEREFORE; IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND I N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED AS CONCLUDED VIDE ORDER SH EET ENTRY DATED 02.03.2009. 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED SOME OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN THE CONTRACT WORK AND ALSO SOME OF THE P ERSONS WITH WHOSE HELP THE WORK GOT EXECUTED BEFORE THE AO FOR DEPOSITION. THESE PERSONS, AS PER AO'S REMAND REPOR T, ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN/DONE WORK TO/FOR THE APPELLANT . DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTE D CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF SOME PERSONS BEFORE THE AO WHO HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE EITHER GIVEN THE CONTRACT W ORK AND OR DONE THE WORK OF SUPPLY OF LABOUR TO/FOR THE APPELL ANT. IN CASE OF THREE PARTIES, NAMELY, M/S S. K. CONSTRUCTIONS, SHRI NEEL KANTH AND SHRI RAMPREET, THE APPELLANT HAS PAID SUM S PAYABLE TO THEM THROUGH CHEQUES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE AO HAS NOT FINALLY CONCLUDED WITH THE ADMISSION OF THE APP ELLANT'S VERSION, BUT HIS REPORT ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT T HE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF LABOURS. NON A TTENDANCE OF SOME PERSONS DOES NOT PROVE OTHERWISE. AT MOST, THEY MAY BE NON-GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACC EPTED ALL, PAST AND SUBSEQUENT RETURNS OF INCOME FROM THE BUSI NESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY OF LABOUR OF THE APPE LLANT AS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THE TDS HAVE B EEN DEDUCTED EVERY YEAR ACCEPT THE RELEVANT YEAR. I HAV E E MINED THE TDS PROVISIONS AND FOUND THAT THE TDS ARE NOT L IABLE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR ON THE CONTRACTEES AND OR THE APPELLANT AS THEY ARE INDIVIDUALS HAVING TURNOVERS LESS THAN 40 LAKHS. ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 4 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF T HE APPELLANT AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ALL THE DEPOSITS AS BUS INESS RECEIPTS. THESE DEPOSITS HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE CO LOUR OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS AFTER POINTING OUT BY THE DEPARTM ENT. RATHER, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED RETURN SHOWING THESE RECEIP TS AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS WELL IN STATUTORY TIME. 4.4 KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN TOTALITY AS MENTIONED ABOVE, I HEREBY HOLD THAT THE AO WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING BANK DEPOSITS OF RS. OF RS.39 ,12,175/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS THESE ARE BA SICALLY BUSINESS RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT IS REQUI RED TO BE DONE ON THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE CONTRACT RECEIPT S OF RS.39,12,175/-, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME IN T HE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.35,99,210/- (ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.39,12,175/- L ESS RETURNED INCOME OF RS.3,12,970/-). AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,99,210/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES IN DETAIL. AFTER H EARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCO ME WHERE THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAXABLE INCOME HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ON THE ESTIM ATED PROFIT @ 8% ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.39,12,175/- AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS ALSO FILED ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 8% AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 6 & 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALSO, THE RETURN WAS FILED ON THE BASI S OF ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 8% ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 5 OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 44AD WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 21 AND 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED27.10.2009 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. CIT(A)-XXIV /09-10/69, DATED 21.08.2009 ON THE ABOVE CITED SUBJECT. IN THIS CONT EXT, AS DIRECTED I CONDUCTED INQUIRY, THE REPORT IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR KIND PERU SAL, AS UNDER : 1. THE NOTICES/LETTER, DATED 01.09.2009 ISSUED TO A LL THE PERSONS, AND DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR, SUCH AS, TO SUBMIT THE FOL LOWING DETAILS, BY 23.09.2009: A) NATURE OF BUSINESS, IN WHICH YOU DEALT WITH (IN BRIEF), B) ARE YOU ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX, IF YES, PLEASE F URNISH .THE COPIES OF RECEIPT OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS ALONGWITH C OPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2005 FOR RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 C) COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI P RAKASH S/O SHRI DHARMVIR SOLANKI, AND CONFIRMATION OF AMOUNT, IS TH ERE ANY RECEIVABLE AND / OR PAYABLE AMOUNT BY YOU. D) TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION MADE WITH SHRI JAI P RAKASH S/O SHRI DHANNVIR SOLANKI DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. S.NO. NAME & ADDRESS OF PERSONS (SH./MS/M/S REMARKS 1. MOHAMAD ROZID ANSARI R/O 186/88A, GAFFAR MANGIL, GALI NO.1, JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA, NEW DELHI-L 10025 ON 23.09.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND FILED THE DETAILS EXCEPT LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI PRAKASH. AND HE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 05.10.09. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 05.10.2009. ON 07.10.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR FURTHER 15 DAYS. 2. MOHINDER PRASAD BENGALI R/O TA-L1, NEW TUGLAKABAD EXTN. NEW DELHI ON 23.09.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND TILED THE DETAILS EXCEPT LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI PRAKASH. AND HE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 05.10.09. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 6 APPEAR ON 05.10.2009. ON 07.10.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR FURTHER 15 DAYS. 3. MANOJ KUMAR R/O TA-11, NEW TUGLAKABAD EXTN. NEW DELHI ON 23.09.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND FILED THE DETAILS EXCEPT LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI PRAKASH. AND HE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 05.10.09. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 05.10.2009. ON 07.10.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR FURTHER 15 DAYS. 4. HARENDER SINGH R/O P-193, 1ST FLOOR, DAKSHIN PURI EXTN., NEW DELHI ON 23.09.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND FILED THE DETAILS EXCEPT LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI PRAKASH. AND HE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 05.10.09. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 05.10.2009. ON 07.10.2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR FURTHER 15 DAYS. 5. UMA SHANKAR, R/O P-193, 1ST FLOOR, DAKSHIN PURI EXTN., NEW DELHI LETTER RETURNED BACK WITH POSTAL REMARK' NO SUCH PERSON'. 6. M/S S.K. CONSTRUCTIONS, VILLAGE MASUDPUR, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI LETTER DID NOT RECEIVE BACK. THE PARTY NEITHER ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY SUBMISSION. 7. NEEL KANTH VILLAGE KRITPUR, POST RAKA DISTT., DURG CHATTISGARH, MADHYA PRADESH LETTER DID NOT RECEIVE BACK. 8. RAMPREET VILLAGE KHUMHAR, VESHNUI PURI, MAYS MANIK CHOWK, P.S.IMRA COURT, BIHAR LETTER RETURNED BACK WITH POSTAL REMARK' INCOMPLETE ADDRESS'. 9. ASHRAF VILLAGE & POST ANGERAIL, POLICE STATION BALRAMPUR, DISTT.KATIHAR, BIHAR LETTER RETURNED BACK. 10. NOOR ALAM VILLAGE DHANERA, POST ANREL WAY BARSOE GHAT, DISTT. KATIHAR, BIHAR LETTER RETURNED BACK WITH POSTAL REMARK 'NOT CLAIMED'. ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 7 2. ON 12.10.2009, A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO SHRI JAI P RAKASH, TO PRODUCE ALL THE PERSONS ON 27.10.2009 BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. P ERSONS AT SERIAL NO.5, 4, 7 AND 2 WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. AND THE Y CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF SHRI JAI PRAKASH, THAT SHRI JAI PRAKA SH IS ENGAGED IN SUPPLY OF LABOUR. BUT, PERSON AT SERIAL NO.1, 3, 6, 8, 9 AND 10 WERE NOT PRODUCED BY SHRI JAI PRAKASH. SHRI JAI PRAKASH HAS STATED THAT : ' REGARDING PRODUCING OF SH. MOHD. ROZID ANSARI, SH RI MANOJ KUMAR, M/S S.K. CONSTRUCTION, PROP. MR. SHAMAL, SH. ASHRAF AND MR. NOOR ALAM ALL THESE PERSONS HAVE GONE TO THEIR NATIVE PL ACE FOR MARRIAGE IN THEIR FAMILY AND FOR CHATT PUJA, ETC IN BIHAR. THES E PERSONS SHALL BE BACK WITHIN 10-15 DAYS TIME AS PER MY INFORMATION. HOWEV ER, I SHALL PRODUCE THEM BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF ON THEIR RETURN F ROM THEIR NATIVE VILLAGE, IN THE EVENT SAME IS NECESSARY...' 3. SINCE, I HAVE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ALL PE RSONS AND EVEN TO SHRI JAI PRAKASH, BUT TILL DATE, ALL PERSONS DID NOT FIL E THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAI PRAKASH. AND SIX PERSON HAVE STILL TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS DEALING WITH SHRI JAI PRAKASH. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED HIS SUBMISSION ON 10.09.2007, REPRODUCE A S UNDER: ' THE ASSESSEE IS A REGULARLY INCOME TAX ASSESSEE A ND IS FILING ITS RETURNS OF INCOME REGULARLY. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS ETC. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAME BUS INESS IS CONTINUING FROM THE PROCEEDING ASSTT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE IS NO T MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DECLARES, PROFIT ON ESTIMATED BASIS, ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 44 AD OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961.' IT PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT PROVISION OF SECT ION 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A N ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OR SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE BAS HIMSELF STATED IN HIS LETT ER DATED 10.09.2009, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS ETC. 5. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHILE T HE CLAIMING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPERLY SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE, THE AO RELIED UPON THE SAME AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY MY PREDECES SOR. AS PER THESE REMAND REPORT, SHRI UMA SHANKAR - SL. NO.5 OF THE TABLE, SHRI HARENDER SINGH - SL. NO.4 OF THE TABLE, NEEL KANTH SL.NO.7 AND MOHINDER ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 8 PRASAD BENGALI SL.NO.2 WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE SUPPLY OF LABOUR. THUS ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF LABOUR WAS ESTABLISHED. DUE TO DISPUTE, THE PAYMENTS OF M/S. S.K. CONSTRUCTIONS, NEEL KANTH AND RAMPREET WERE HELD UP AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. REVENUE HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THIS FACT. THEIR EXISTENCE PROVED BY FILING PERMANENT A CCOUNT NUMBERS. SHRI NEEL KANTH WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN SUPPLY OF LABOUR. S/SHRI ASHRAF AND NOOR ALAM WERE AWAY AT THEIR NATIVE PLACE DUE TO CHAT PUJA. THE ASSESSEE IS FIL ING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT AND N OT KEEPING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE WAS DEAL ING WAS MOSTLY MIGRATED FROM THE OTHER STATE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED MOST OF THE PERSONS WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE THE CONTRACT WORK AND AL SO THE PERSON WHO HAS SUPPLIED THE LABOUR TO EXECUTE THE WORK. THE ASSES SING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT ESTABLISHES THAT THEY HAVE DONE WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THESE PERSONS WERE ALSO F ILED. AS PER THESE CONFIRMATIONS, THESE PERSONS HAS GIVEN THE CONTRACT WORK TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE SUPPLIED THE LABOUR TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TDS PROVISIONS WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE PAYMENTS WERE TO THE INDIVIDUALS AND THEY WERE HAVING ITA NO.1817/DEL./2010 9 TURNOVER OF LESS THAN RS.40 LACS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO FAULT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WHEREIN T HE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE ACCEPTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : THE 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.