(1.) The Revenue has preferred this Appeal to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in batch of Appeals. By the order delivered on 13th July, 2012, the Tribunal decided two Appeals, one by the Assessee being Income Tax Appeal No. 3719/Mum/2010, other by the Revenue being Income Tax Appeal No. 5110/Mum/2010 and Cross Objection of the Assessee in the Appeal of the Revenue. Assessment year is 2007-08.
(2.) Mr. Pinto appearing for the Revenue would submit that the present Appeal raises substantial question of law. He submits that the substantial question of law is because the Tribunal was not right in accepting the estimation of income without any substantial basis. The Tribunal rendered an inconsistent and contradictory finding, inasmuch as it rejected the books of accounts. They were held to be not reliable and equally the purchases were held as not supported by proper evidence. Once such was the conclusion reached and on facts, the Tribunal should not have confirmed the estimation of 8% of turnover as the income of the Assessee, which was the exercise carried out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This approach of the Tribunal also was not sound, because the estimation of the Commissioner was not put to the Assessing Officer nor his comments with regard thereto were invited. For all these reasons, he submits that the Appeal be admitted.
(3.) Upon careful reading of the order passed by the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner, we are unable to agree with Mr. Pinto. In this case, on the own saying of the Revenue, the Assessee is a contractor and undertaking works for public body, namely the Municipal Corporation. A return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed by him on 31st October, 2007, declaring a net taxable income of Rs.1,39,64,580/-. The Assessee represents a share of profit from a partnership firm of M/s. Rameshwar Enterprises in addition to his generating income from the proprietary concern, namely M/s. Ratansingh and Brothers. He is stated to be a civil contractor. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made inquiries into the loans taken, the purchases made, the genuineness of some subcontracts awarded by the Assessee and the penalty paid by him.