IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No.7243/Mum/2014 (A.Y:2010-11) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Quick Builders, Plot Tax-22(3), Room NO.322, Piramal No.142, Shah House, 3 r d Chambers, 3rd floor, Parel, Mumbai-12 floor, S. V. Road, Khar (West), Mumbai- 400 052 PAN: AAAFQ 0227F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by .. Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR Respondent by .. Shri Ashit R. Mehta, AR Date of hearing .. 22-09-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 22 - 09- 2016 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal of Revenue is arising out of order of CIT (Appeals)-30, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT (A)-30/Addl. CIT-19(1)/13-14 dated 19-09-2014. Assessment was framed by Addl. CIT, Range-19(1), Mumbai for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Act) vide his order dated 28-03-2013. 2. only issue involved in this appeal of Revenue against order of CIT (A) deleting addition of estimated income. For this, assessee has raised following ground No.1:- 1. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.52.57 lakhs holding that rejection of books was not justified without appreciating fact that stock details were not being maintained by assessee . 3. We have heard rival contentions and also gone through facts of case. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is civil contractor engaged in construction of residential buildings and other misc. construction works undertaken on tender basis. Assessing Officer from details furnished by assessee noticed that assessee has disclosed income from 19 projects, out of which 12 projects were carried forward projects and 7 projects have been awarded during year. assessee has disclosed total contract receipts at Rs.15.12 Crores and closing work-in-progress at Rs.2.27 Crores. According to Assessing Officer, assessee 2 ITA No.7243/Mum/2014 has not maintained stock register; therefore, he rejected book results by invoking provisions of Section 145 (3) of Act and estimated income by applying profit rate of 8% of total turnover. He estimated income by computing business income by taking total turnover at Rs.17,39,64,992/- and estimated net profit at Rs.1,39,17,199/-. assessee has declared profit at Rs.86,59,243/- and thereby addition made by Assessing Officer was at Rs.52,57,956/-. CIT (A) after taking following comparative rates deleted addition:- Asst. Year Total salesGross Profit Net Profit GP Ratio NP Assessed (GP) Before salary Ratio U/s. to partners (NP) 2010-11 1512209206 15561156 6825637 10.29 4.51 Under appeal 2009-10 135695672 13764933 4221821 10.14 3.11 143(3) 2008-09 209271990 15965065 5966457 07.63 2.85 143(3) 4. After going through arguments both sides and going through facts of case, we find that after rejecting books of account of assessee Assessing Officer has estimated GP @8% by taking total turnover of assessee at Rs.17,39,64,992/- instead of Rs.15.14 Crores as mentioned in Para 4 of assessment order. Assessing Officer has also wrongly added work-in- progress of Rs.2.27 Crores to contract income and computed GP @ 8% on said amount, which was not income during year. It is further seen that GP and NP rate during AY 2010-11 was 10.29% and 4.5% respectively. For AY 2009-10 same was 10.14% and 3.11% and for AY 2008-09 it was 7.63% and 2.85% respectively. Assessments for both years i.e. AY 2009-10 and 2008-09 were framed u/s 143(3) of Act and Assessing Officer has not pointed out any reason for deviating from stand taken in earlier years in respect of accounting method followed by assessee consistently. In view of this, we hold that Assessing Officer has not pointed out any material defects on record to show that assessee s books of accounts were not correct and true and that correct profit from assessee s business cannot be determined from same. We find reliance of Assessing Officer on case laws for rejecting books of accounts of assessee is misplaced. Hence, we uphold order of CIT (A) directing Assessing Officer for deleting addition of Rs.52,57,956/- made by him on 3 ITA No.7243/Mum/2014 account of addition to net profit from assessees contract income. Resultantly, Revenue s appeal stands dismissed. 5. In result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 22-09-2016. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 22-09-2016 Lakshmikanta Deka/Sr.PS Copy of Order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT (A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI Sr.No. Particulars Date Initials Member Concerned 1 Dictation given on (direct on computer) 22/09/16 LK Deka JM 2 Draft placed before author 22/09/16 3 Draft proposed/placed before second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second member 5 Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 File sent to Bench Clerk 8 Date on which file goes to Head Clerk 9 Date of dispatch of Order Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax-22(3), Mumbai v. M/s. Quick Builder