IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 44/IND/2015 A.Y. : 2008-09. SHRI MUKESH MODI, ITO, RATLAM VS. WARD 1, RATLAM APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO.AGSPM0650L A PPELLANT S BY : SHRI ADITYA NAMJOSHI C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), UJJAIN DATED 16.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. DATE OF HEARING : 16.11. 2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 01 .201 6. SHRI MUKESH MODI, RATLAM VS. ITO, WARD 1, RATLAM,I. T.A.NO. 44/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09 2 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL READS AS UNDER :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PARTI AL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 3,26,065/- U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT. 3. THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY ONE DAY. TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO COURIE R SERVICE TO DELIVER THE SIGNED FORMS FROM RATLAM TO UJJAIN, WHERE HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE IS LOCATED. AN A FFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OF ONE DAY MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED. 4. I HAVE PERUSED THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT. I FIND THAT DELAY CAUSED WA S REASONABLE AND HENCE THE DELAY OF ONE DAY IS CONDONED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR AND HE ATTACHES VEHICLES TO VARIOUS INDUSTRIES AND GET FRE IGHT AND COMMISSION. THE GROSS RECEIPT DURING THE YEAR WAS R S. 10,73,447/-. THE TDS CERTIFICATE ALSO ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN. SHRI MUKESH MODI, RATLAM VS. ITO, WARD 1, RATLAM,I. T.A.NO. 44/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09 3 3 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED RS. 7,76,346/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED C ONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE INCOME OF RS. 1,25,290/- ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS, THEREBY GIVING NET PROFIT OF 42 %. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF RS. 10 ,73,447/- FROM THE TRANSPORT RECEIPTS ON WHICH 42% OF THE NET PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE THE ADDITION. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT HAVING NET PROFIT OF 42%. THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER I S LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 44AD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961. THEREFORE, 8% OF THE GROSS PROFIT SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS PROFIT AND THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE CONFIRMED ACC ORDINGLY. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR OBJECTED. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED TDS CERTIFICATE ALONGWITH HIS RETURN AND IN THE RETURN, HE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME. THEREFO RE, THE TDS CERTIFICATE IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHER EIN TDS SHRI MUKESH MODI, RATLAM VS. ITO, WARD 1, RATLAM,I. T.A.NO. 44/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09 4 4 CERTIFICATE SHOWING RECEIPT OF RS. 10,73,447/- FROM TRANSPORT BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ALREADY CONTRAC T RECEIPT OF RS. 2,97,101/-. THEREFORE, RS. 7,76,346/- IS UNA CCOUNTED RECEIPT WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, THE NET PROFIT OF 8% ON THIS AMOUNT IS TREATED AS I NCOME INSTEAD OF 42% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKE NET DISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. 1,25,2 90/-. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2016. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6 TH JANUARY, 2016. CPU* 2311