AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard Shri Rishi Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants as also perused the record of revenue, this Court finds no reason to interfere, for
the Court is not satisfied of the case involving any substantial question of law.
Facts cannot be re-appreciated, as is sought to be urged before us. The Tribunal, while considering the contention raised by the Revenue, of
suppression of percentage of profit, has returned the finding in paragraph no. 3 of the impugned order which is reproduced hereinunder:
“3. Mr. Sinha vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned disallowance for lack of
substantiation of the expenditure in question at the assessee’s behest during the course of scrutiny. We make it clear that the department is fair
enough in not disputing all other heads of turn over, income and expenditure per se. It only seeks to revive the impugned estimation. The CIT(A)'s
above extracted findings hold that the assessee has already declared its profits in tune with various jurisdictional precedents relating to Contract
business. He has properly, kept in mind the said profit rate @6% (supra) for modifying the impugned disallowance from 4% to 1%. Learned
Departmental Representative fails to indicate any illegality or irregularity therein at the time of hearing. It transpires that the Assessing Officer had not
even compared assessee's expenditure claims with those allowed in earlier assessment years under various heads. We therefore affirm CIT(A)’s
findings granting part relief to the tax payer. The instant lead appeal ITA No.146/Pat/2018 fails.â€
We find that such finding is based on the cogent material emanating from the record.
It is the case of the Revenue that against the gross receipt of Rs. 62 crores (approximately), the net income declared was just 5.81%, which is Rs.
3.64 crores (approximately), and ought to have been on the higher side. Further, it is argued that disallowance ought to have been to the extent of 4%
instead of 1%.
Significantly, the appellate authority itself recorded that in cases of civil contractors, business alike to one carried out by the assessee, the net rate of
profit accepted by the parties is 6%. In this view of the matter, marginal difference of 0.19%, less than the accepted rate of profit cannot be said to be
under valued, warranting interference by this Court, more so, when the matter is based on factual matrix. Significantly, at no point in time, the
Revenue ever challenged the authenticity and correctness of Audit Report, certifying the correctness of the books of accounts maintained by the
assessee.
Hence, impugned order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 146/Pat/2018 is affirmed.
Appeal stands dismissed.