Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in rejecting the appellant's claim that part of the work (Rs.1,06,15,712/- out of Rs.10,20,17,897) was executed by the appellant itself on the mere ground ITA No 1011 of 2016 SVB Constructions Anantapur.

that the appellant did not produce confirmatory proof from the contractee Enercon (India) Ltd".

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm carrying on civil contract work. It filed its e-return for the A.Y 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 admitting total income of Rs.22,33,230. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee was required to file certain information. The assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details called for.

3. The AO observed that the assessee has taken civil contract work from M/s. Enercon (India) Ltd, Daman and received gross bills of Rs.10,20,17,897 during the year under consideration and that the assessee has given the work to sub- contract and paid an amount of Rs.8,90,10,914 to them during the year. Since very few details of the work carried out by the assessee have been given by the assessee, the AO issued a show- cause notice to the assessee on 10.03.2014 requiring him to furnish all the details immediately. The assessee furnished part of the details and on perusal of the said details, the AO observed that as far as the assessee is concerned, there need not be much expenditure except administrative expenditure, as the assessee firm has given sub-contracts to many persons. Since the assessee also did not produce vouchers for the entire expenses, the AO held that the gross profit available with the assessee is at Rs.1,30,06,983 and after allowing the administrative expenses of Rs.13,62,363, interest to partners of Rs.61,645 and remuneration to Partners of Rs.4,80,000, the AO treated the balance of Rs.1,11,02,975 as income of the assessee. Since the assessee had ITA No 1011 of 2016 SVB Constructions Anantapur.

already admitted net profit of Rs.22,33,230, the remaining amount of Rs.88,69,745 was brought to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) stating that the assessee also has carried on part of the work and therefore, the entire receipt after reducing the sub-contract payment cannot be treated as the assessee's income for the relevant A.Y. The CIT (A) however, confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us.

4. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO and the CIT (A) have accepted the payments made by the assessee to the sub-contract work. He submitted that the balance of Rs.1,30,06,983 has been treated as the gross profit of the assessee which is not sustainable. He submitted that the assessee has carried on certain work by itself and after reducing the expenses incurred by it for carrying on such work, the assessee has offered the net profit to tax. He has drawn our attention to the P&L A/c of the assessee to demonstrate that the assessee has also incurred certain expenses to the tune of Rs.9,80,45,894. He has also drawn our attention to the bills & vouchers at pages 7 to 35 of the paper book filed by him. He submitted that these papers were submitted before the AO and the CIT (A), but they have failed to consider the said details. He has drawn our attention to the submissions of the assessee dated 30.01.2014 wherein the assessee had stated that the firm had executed the work on its own of Rs.1,31,56,983 and related expenditure was claimed in P&L A/c. He explained the work carried out by the assessee as cleaning and formation of roads on hills and for this purpose it had to remove boulders and carry out work of blasting, levelling ITA No 1011 of 2016 SVB Constructions Anantapur.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the AO and the CIT (A) have not doubted the sub-contracts given by the assessee. We find that the assessee has filed a statement of the total work executed by the sub- contractors as well as by itself at pages 56 to 61 of the paper book. In support thereof, the assessee has also filed the relevant bills and invoices. As seen from these documents, the assessee's payments are mostly towards hiring of the JCBs and civil construction work. Therefore, the findings of the AO and the CIT (A) that the assessee has not filed any details about the work carried on by it is not correct. Further, the entire receipt, except for the sub contract payments and the administrative expenses, has been treated as assessee's income. We also find that the AO has not rejected the books of account. In these circumstances, we prefer to estimate the profit rather than remand the issue to the file of the AO for verification of the above documents. We find that in the cases of civil contractors, the maximum rate of net profit ITA No 1011 of 2016 SVB Constructions Anantapur.