IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
N.V. VASUDEVAN, V.P.
Mahadevappa Basappa Edaramani v. Asstt. CIT
ITA No. 2480/Bang/2019
10 January, 2020
In favour of assessee.
Appellant by: R.E. Balasubramanyam, CA
Respondent by: Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept., Joint Commissioner--Departmental Representative (ITAT), Bengaluru
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the Order, dated 30-9-2019 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Kalaburagi in relation to assessment year 2015-16.
2. The Assessee is an individual. He is a PWD Contractor executing various civil work. For assessment year 2015-16, the Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 16,55,650. The assessing officer completed the Assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) i.e., Best Judgment Assessment because the Assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the assessing officer calling for various details. In the assessment so completed, the assessing officer noticed that the contract receipts of the Assessee as per Form 26AS i.e., the details of Tax deduction at source (TDS) the receipts of the Assessee from contracts was Rs. 3,28,21,904 as against the contract receipts of Rs. 2,78,98,724 declared by the Assessee in the return of income. The assessing officer added 10% of the difference of Rs. 49,23,180 viz., a sum of Rs. 4,92,318 as profit on contract receipts not disclosed. The assessing officer also added a sum of Rs. 1,16,269 which was interest on income tax refund received by the Assessee. The assessing officer also disallowed the claim of the Assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 27,616 being contribution to Contractors Benevolent Fund (CBF) on the ground that the said sum is not allowable under section 36(1) of the Act. The assessing officer found that the Assessee had deposited cash totalling Rs. 51,34,000 in his bank account.