KRISHAN PAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 574/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2022AY 2014-152 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the gross contractual receipts of Rs. 3.41 crores. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit at 8% on total receipts and give credit for tax already paid on income.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared gross receipts of Rs. 23,29,036 in their ITR, but Form 26AS showed receipts of Rs. 2,63,19,905. The assessee failed to provide supporting documents for the discrepancy. The Assessing Officer added the difference to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the discrepancy between declared income and Form 26AS, and the assessee's inability to substantiate the difference. The tribunal had to determine how to tax the undisclosed receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 194J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. A.D. JainDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 12.04.2022Pronounced: 11.05.2022

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 08.08.2019 relating to AY 2014-15.

2.

The assessee is an individual and earning income from business & other sources. During the year under consideration, the receipts U/s 194C & 194J as per 26AS are more than the receipts shown. The AO noticed from Income Tax Return filed by the assessee that the assessee has declared gross receipts of Rs.23,29,036/- whereas as per 26AS downloaded from the system, receipts of Rs.2,63,19,905/-. Vide order sheet entry dated 20.10.2016, the ld. AR of the assessee was asked to furnish service tax return and confirmation and work order copy from parties from which contract has been received. The ld. AR

Krishan Pal of the assessee was unable to furnish service tax & VAT return, and confirmation & work order copy from parties from which contract has been received despite adequate opportunity given. As assessee has received total of Rs.3,41,72,874/- in all as per his own admission. Hence the difference of Rs.3,18,43,838/- (Sales of Rs.3,41,72,874 minus gross receipt as per ITR of Rs.23,29,036/-) was added back to the income of the assessee.

3.

During the course of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant contended that that as per Audited Trading and P & L accounts, the gross receipts are Rs.3,41,72,874/-, whereas receipt of Rs.2,63,19,905/- have been reflected in Form 26AS. The appellant claimed that the discrepancy in the audited P & L account and Form 26AS is on account of petty works on which TDS has not been deducted.

4.

There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee had gross contractual receipts of Rs.3.41 crores. We hold that the ends of justice would be well served by estimating the profit @8% on the total receipts. The AO is also hereby directed to due benefit of the income which has already been tax.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →