Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-3, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur v. Shri Kanhiya Lal Choudhary, Near Bus Stand, Toda Raisingh, Dist.-Tonk, Ay: 2011-12

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 276 / 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-3, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Shri Kanhiya Lal Choudhary, Near Bus Stand, Toda Raisingh, Dist.-Tonk, AY: 2011-12 ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Daksh Pareek on behalf of Mr. Sameer Jain For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment 01/11/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department as well as cross objectionsof the assessee. 2.Counsel for the appellant has framed the followingsubstantial questions of law:- Q.1 Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wasjustified in law in confirming the order ofCIT(A) wherein as against a Net Profit rate of11. 5%, the CIT(A) has applied a Net Profitrate of 11% subject to interest expensesdespite of upholding the invoking theprovisions of section 145(3) of the Act? Q.2 Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wasjustified in law in deleting the trading additions despite upholding the provisions ofSection 145(3) of the Act? Q.3 Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wasjustified in law in confirming the order ofCIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) wrongly treatedthe interest on FDRs as “income frombusiness” on which Net Profit rate at 11% wasalso calculated on the interest of FIRs which isin the nature of “income from other sources”. 3.The facts of the case are that the assessee is a civilcontractor engaged in construction of roads, bridges, dams and other works. He filed his return of income on 26.09.2011declaring total income of 64,94,670/-. The AO- CIT (OSD), Range-7, Jaipur through his order dated 12.03.2014 madetrading addition of Rs. 98,36,042 by estimating NP rate 11.05 onthe total contract receipt of Rs. 11,37,14,822/- on Gross Receipts u/s 145(3) because the assessee did not maintainproper record of stock, stone and grit expense, diesel expenses and transportation expenses. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5.While considering the case the Tribunal observed asunder:- “We find that, Ld.CIT(A) has given finding that,interest income has been treated as part of the turn overby the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in past such expenseswere allowed. Therefore, we do not see any reason tointerefere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is herebyaffirmed. Thus, this ground of the Revenue’s appeal isdismissed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6.Even otherwise, in the case of assessee himself this court in D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 17/2013 decided on 11.09.2017has held as under:- “4. Counsel for the appellant has taken usto the order of AO and contended that theview taken by the AO is just and proper andthe CIT (A) and the Tribunal havecommitted serious error and therefore, theview taken by AO is required to be restored. 5. Counsel for the respondent has pointedout the observations made by CIT (A) andTribunal and contended that both theauthorities have taken into considerationthe net profit of the earlier years and booksof account and rightly come to theconclusion and the view taken by theauthorities is required to be confirmed.” 5. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arisesin the appeal. 6.The appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B.M.G/Gourav/6