JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department as well as cross objections of the assessee. 2. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law:— Q.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) wherein as against a Net Profit rate of 11.5%, the CIT(A) has applied a Net Profit rate of 11% subject to interest expenses despite of upholding the invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act? Q.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the trading additions despite upholding the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act? Q.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) wrongly treated the interest on FDRs as “income from business” on which Net Profit rate at 11% was also calculated on the interest of FIRs which is in the nature of “income from other sources”. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in construction of roads, bridges, dams and other works. He filed his return of income on 26.09.2011 Deetaring total income of 64,94,670/-. The AO-CIT (OSD), Range-7, Jaipur through his order dated 12.03.2014 made trading addition of Rs. 98,36,042 by estimating NP rate 11.05 on the total contract receipt of Rs. 11,37,14,822/- on Gross Receipts u/s 145(3) because the assessee did not maintain proper record of stock, stone and grit expense, diesel expenses and transportation expenses. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. While considering the case the Tribunal observed as under:— “We find that, Ld. CIT(A) has given finding that, interest income has been treated as part of the turn over by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in past such expenses were allowed. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. Thus, this ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6. Moreover, in past such expenses were allowed. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. Thus, this ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6. Even otherwise, in the case of assessee himself this court in D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 17/2013 decided on 11.09.2017 has held as under:— “4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of AO and contended that the view taken by the AO is just and proper and the CIT (A) and the Tribunal have committed serious error and therefore, the view taken by AO is required to be restored. 5. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out the observations made by CIT (A) and Tribunal and contended that both the Authorities have taken into consideration the net profit of the earlier years and books of account and rightly come to the conclusion and the view taken by the authorities is required to be confirmed.” 7. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. 8. The appeal stands dismissed.