Krishan Pal, Ghaziabad V. ACIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 574/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2577 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GARG
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 194C; 194J

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A.D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 574/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Krishan Pal, GH-7, Gaur House, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001 Vs ACIT, Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh-201001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMMPP0421C Assessee by : Sh. A. R. Garg, CA Revenue by : Sh. R. J. Pradip Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 08.08.2019 relating to AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee is an individual and earning income from business & other sources. During the year under consideration, the receipts U/s 194C & 194J as per 26AS are more than the receipts shown. The AO noticed from Income Tax Return filed by the assessee that the assessee has declared gross receipts of Rs.23,29,036/- whereas as per 26AS downloaded from the system, receipts of Rs.2,63,19,905/-. Vide order sheet entry dated 20.10.2016, the ld. AR of the assessee was asked to furnish service tax return and confirmation and work order copy from parties from which contract has been received. The ld. AR ITA No.574/Del/2020 Krishan Pal 2 of the assessee was unable to furnish service tax & VAT return, and confirmation & work order copy from parties from which contract has been received despite adequate opportunity given. As assessee has received total of Rs.3,41,72,874/- in all as per his own admission. Hence the difference of Rs.3,18,43,838/- (Sales of Rs.3,41,72,874 minus gross receipt as per ITR of Rs.23,29,036/-) was added back to the income of the assessee. 3. During the course of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant contended that that as per Audited Trading and P & L accounts, the gross receipts are Rs.3,41,72,874/-, whereas receipt of Rs.2,63,19,905/- have been reflected in Form 26AS. The appellant claimed that the discrepancy in the audited P & L account and Form 26AS is on account of petty works on which TDS has not been deducted. 4. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee had gross contractual receipts of Rs.3.41 crores. We hold that the ends of justice would be well served by estimating the profit @8% on the total receipts. The AO is also hereby directed to due benefit of the income which has already been tax. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/05/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (A.D. Jain) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 11/05/2022 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜf{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ