COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DHANANJAY KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions of law arising in the above appeal are framed as follows:-

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue argued that in the present case, the assessee was a works contractor, who in addition to the said income had income from other sources, in the subject assessment year, being 2012-13. The Assessing Officer looked at the books of accounts and directed the assessee to produce the bills and vouchers of the materials purchased. The assessee having failed to produce the same, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts and estimated a net profit of 6% on the gross receipts of the assessee to which the other incomes were added.

(3.) The Commissioner under Sec. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') found the assessment order to be erroneous on two counts. The payment of tax deducted at source claimed of Rs.2,64,000.00 having not being proved and the Assessing Officer having not reckoned the sundry creditors of the assessee especially when no bills and vouchers were produced. The order of the Commissioner under Sec. 263 of 'the Act' is asserted to be perfect, in all respects, by the Revenue, since the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The learned Senior Standing Counsel also relies on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax; (2000) 243 ITR 0083.