R.P. No.587/2014 18/12/2014. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for petitioner. Seeking review/ recall of order passed on 19.3.2014 in ITA No.13/2014 dismissing appeal filed by Revenue, this application has been filed. grounds raised in this review petition is that when matter was taken up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP, same was withdrawn with liberty to file review application. Referring to averments made in para 6 of application for review it is tried to be emphasized that in absence of there being proper verification and proof with regard to confirmation of creditors and identity of persons in connection with labour expenses and evidence being recorded, matter has been decided and, therefore, there is error apparent on face of record. In assessment proceedings originally held even though Assessing Officer disallowed benefit of labour expenses and certain amount received from Creditors but while considering matter both Appellate Authorities namely have found that in disallowing aforesaid amount, Assessing 2 R.P. No.587/2014 Officer has not taken note of all these factors. It was found that in proceedings held, Assessee has produced payments made to labourers and confirmation from all of them. Complete postal address of all 876 labour creditors were produced along with postal address of 21 parties which include 8 parties for whom outs`tanding labour assessment were made. Inspite of all these materials being available, impugned action was taken. Appellate Authority has gone into all these questions and it was found that total expenditure in this regard claimed by Assessee cannot be treated as bogus as confirmation with receipt to all persons were filed and therefore, it was held as under :- Another fact worth mentioning is that during assessment proceedings assessee produced 13 creditors for examination out of which statements of 8 persons were recorded. Out of these persons, 5 persons admitted doing work and received payments. One person namely Shri Alimuddin, admitted doing work but disputed correctness of payment. One person, Shri Jeetendra, stated that he left 3 R.P. No.587/2014 work in 2007 and did not receive payment for subsequent period. totality of facts indicate that total expenditure, claimed by assessee, cannot be treated as bogus but at same time, it is also admitted position that confirmation with respect to all persons were not filed or filed for some of persons. In view of these facts, provisions of Section 145(3) clearly attracts that too in absence of correctness and completeness of labour expenses. only option remained with authorities is estimation. If addition of Rs.3,34,16,321/- is considered to be correct then net profit comes to 17.8% which is practically may not be possible. learned CIT (A) has already discussed (page 10) some of cases like CIT Vs. Prabhat Kumar, M/s Surendraprasad Nair and decision of Tribunal where application of rate of 12% was found to be appropriate. In present appeal, since gross receipts are more than prescribed limit contained in section 44 AD of Act, therefore, 4 R.P. No.587/2014 we are refraining ourselves to deal with issue under light of Section 44AD. Admittedly, account of assessee is not maintained in required manner as addresses of labours were neither complete nor confirmations from all such persons were filed by assessee at any stage. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that learned CIT(A) under facts available on record, is quite justified in applying net profit rate of 10% of contract receipts resulting into addition of Rs.67,64,515/- to returned income of assessee, consequently, we affirm same. 5. Now we shall take up appeal of assessee (ITA No. 186/Ind/2012) wherein maintaining addition of Rs.67,64,515/- has been challenged. Since we have upheld stand of learned CIT(A) in maintaining impugned addition challenged by assessee, therefore, this appeal of assessee is automatically adjudicated. appeal of assessee is having no merit, therefore, dismissed. 5 R.P. No.587/2014 In light of aforesaid specific finding recorded by Appellate Tribunal, we see no error in order passed warranting reconsideration. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Judge mrs.mishra Commissioner Of Income-tax, Central v. Dilip Suryavanshi