IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 355/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta v. ACIT, Range-3 B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001.

PAN:AEOPGG7740K (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No. 444/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Range-3 v. Manoj Gupta

27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024.

226001.

PAN: AEOPGG7740K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl.

CIT(DR)

Date of hearing: 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement: 19.03.2025

O R D E R

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

Both these appeals arise out of the order of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [hereinafter referred as to “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to “the Act”] dated 18.09.2020 for the assessment year 2015-16. While ITA. No.355/LKW/2020 has been filed by the assessee, ITA. No.444/LKW/2020 has been filed by the Department. As the issues involved in both these appeals are similar and arise out of the same orders, the appeals are taken up for disposal together. The grounds of appeal in ITA. No.355/LKW/2020 are as under: -

“1. Ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow erred on facts and in law in applying the NP Rate of 8.00% thereby upholding the addition of Rs.18,89,682/. 2. Ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the decision of Honourable ITAT, Lucknow Bench that was previously pronounced in the case of myself only.

3. Ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the VAT assessments and fact that the assessee appellant is providing services only to PSUs which led to higher estimation of the income of the assessee appellant.”

2. The grounds of appeal in ITA. No.444/LKW/2020 are as under: -

“1. The Ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of unconfirmed Sundry Creditors amounting to Rs.1,66,80,021/- and estimated Net Profit @ 8% on total turnover of Rs.7,06,19,151/- by rejecting books of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow had erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,41,592/- made due to difference in balance in Sundry Creditors & estimated Net Profit @ 8% on total turnover of Rs.7,06,19,151/- by rejecting books of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3. Appellant craves leave to add as amend any one or more of the ground of appeal as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble ITAT.”

3. It is observed that the Revenue’s appeal is delayed by 18 days. However, considering the fact that the appeal was filed during the period covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s) 03/2020 dated 23.03.2020, wherein the limitation was waved for all filing during the Covid-19 period, the delay in filing of the said appeal is condoned.

4. The facts of the case are, that the assessee is an individual in the business of Civil Contracting. He filed his return of income for the relevant year on 30.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.37,59,850/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,70,21,613/- under section 68 of the Act, on account of Sundry Creditors who failed to respond to the notices under section 133(6) of the Act, that were issued by the AO and also in some cases where there were differences in the balances shown by the assessee and as confirmed by them. The assessee filed an appeal against this order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2017. In the said appeal, the assessee agitated against the addition on account of unconfirmed Sundry Creditors amounting to Rs.1,66,80,021/- and an addition on account of difference in confirmed amount of credit by Sundry Creditors amounting to