Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by the rejection of its books under Section 145(3) and profit estimation at 7% by the lower authorities. The assessee was previously assessed at lower GP rates for similar activities in preceding years.
Held
The Tribunal found that the profit estimation by the lower authorities was not justified given the prior year's assessments. It deemed it appropriate to allow a lumpsum profit rate of 2.25% for the current year, but not as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the profit estimation by the lower authorities was justified, considering the assessee's past GP rates in similar activities.
Sections Cited
143(3), 145(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076265828(1), dated 16.05.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that there is hardly much a need for the tribunal to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that the assessee herein is aggrieved against both the lower authorities’ action inter alia rejecting its books under section 145(3) of the Act followed by its profit estimation @ 7%; in assessment order, as upheld in the lower appellant discussion.
It is next noticed that so far as the impugned GP estimation is concerned, the assessee stood assessed @ 2.06% in retail loan business agent activity in the preceding assessment year 2017-18 and @ 1.82 in AY 2016-17 involving section 143(3) assessment as evident from the records. That being case and in the larger interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that a lumpsum profit rate of 2.25% herein in these peculiar facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not he treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed.