SH. VISHNU KANT,AGRA vs. ITO.-2(1)(5), AGRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in estimating profits at 20% without rejecting the books. It calculated the profit based on actual sales and purchases, estimating the net profit at Rs. 3,00,000/- after considering potential selling costs.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer estimated profits at Rs. 24,58,007/- by applying a 20% profit rate on the actual turnover, without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The assessee had declared presumptive income under Section 44AD based on lower sales and profit. An additional addition was made for a discrepancy in cash balance.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer can estimate profits at a higher rate without rejecting the assessee's books of account and declared presumptive income. The validity of additions made for estimated profits and cash balance discrepancies.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena
ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A)-2, Agra for the assessment year 2015-16, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.24,58,007/- on account of estimated profits without rejecting the books of account.
Addressing to ground No. 3 & 4, our attention was drawn by the ld. AR to para 3, 4 and 5 of the assessment order to the following effect : 3. On perusal of the Return of income filed for A.Y. 2015-16, it has, however, beer, noticed that in the 'computation of presumptive income from business' part of the Return the assessee has declared total sales of Rs, 12,50,0007- and net profit of Rs. 2,50,000/- by applying provisions of section 44AD of 'the Act', which comes to 20% of the sales declared. It, therefore, clearly shows that the assessee has suppressed the actual sales and net profit there-on. Had the Return not been picked up for scrutiny, the actual sales made by the assessee could not have been brought on record. As the assessee has himself shown net profit from the business @ 20% of the total sales declared in the Return by applying provisions of section 44-AD of 'the Act', in absence of audit report, the same procedure is being followed here to work out net profit on actual turnover shown in the Trading & P&L a/c. Thus, by applying N.P, rate of 20% of the actual turnover of Rs. 1,22,90,035/-, net profit works out to Rs. 24,58,007/-, which will be taken as the net profit from the business.
The assessee has shown cash balance of Rs. 85,000/- in the Return of income filed while computing 'presumptive income from the business1 whereas the cash balance of Rs. 2,77,280/- has been shown in the Balance-sheet filed for the accounting period ended on 31.3.2015. The assessee, vide Order-sheet entry dated 11.12.2017, was required to clarify the position. In reply it has been submitted that it was due to arithmetical mistake. The reply of the assessee in this regard is not convincing. Therefore, the difference of Rs. 1,92,280/- (i.e. 277280 -85000) will be added to the total income.
5. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income from business and has concealed the income to the tune of Rs. 22,08,007/- + Rs. 1,92,280/- = 24,003287/- for the reasons best known to him, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of 'the Act' are initiated to be dealt with separately. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act' is issued and annexed here with.”
It was submitted by the ld. AR that once the Assessing Officer has accepted the total sales made by the assessee as well as the total purchases made, as is clear from paragraph No. 2 to 4 of the assessment order, then it is not open for the Assessing Officer to estimate the income of the assessee @ 20% on the turnover. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have erred in applying the profit rate of 20% on the turnover in the light of above said submissions and also that the books of account have not been rejected.
4. The ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the same do not call for any interference.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In our opinion, it requires to special knowledge in the case of a trader to find out the profit earned by the trader, as the profit is equal to the selling price received by the trader minus the cost of purchase of goods by such trader. In the present case, the total purchases made by assessee were for Rs.1,18,97,992/- and total sales were for Rs.1,22,90,035/-. Therefore, the profit, if any, would be Rs.1,22,90,035 – 1,18,97,992 = 3,92,043/-. In our view, the maximum profit earned by the assessee would be Rs.3,92,043/-. Admittedly, the assessee should have incurred some cost for selling the goods which are required to be given deduction thereof to the assessee. The assessee has not given any details of such cost of expenses incurred by the assessee As a result, we are required to estimate the cost incurred by assessee.
Considering the totality of circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee would have earned the profit of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, the orders passed by the lower authorities are modified with the above observations.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/03/2021.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026