K B CONTRACTORS (PARTNERSHIP),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO should not have completely discredited the assessee's case based solely on the non-production of books, especially when previous years' profit margins were significantly lower. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to produce records.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, had its case reopened. During assessment, it failed to produce its books of accounts, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to make a best judgment assessment by estimating income at 8% and disallowing partner remuneration and interest. The CIT(A) sustained these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO was justified in making a best judgment assessment by applying an 8% net profit rate without considering previous years' profit margins and the reasons for non-production of books. Whether disallowance of partner remuneration and interest was appropriate under the circumstances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 184,Section 185,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
Per Anubhav Sharma, JM :
The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 30.09.2019 passed for assessment year 2011-12, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or in short ‘Ld. F.A.A.’) in regard to the appeal before it arising out of assessment order dated 25.12.2018 u/s 144/148 of I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. Assessing officer or in short Ld. AO).
Del.2019 M/s. K.B. Contractors (Partnership), New Delhi
The assessee is a partnership firm and its case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings in response to notice u/s 148, return was f
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026