ROOPA RAI JAISWAL,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/ACIT (CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

ITA 17/ALLD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 June 2026AY 2018-197 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Net Profit (NP) at 30% of turnover when the assessee had offered NP at 25.79% under Section 44AD. A Third Member was nominated due to a difference of opinion between the original Members.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Third Member, concurring with the Judicial Member, held that the Assessing Officer cannot apply an average profit rate based on past history when presumptive taxation under Section 44AD is claimed, especially without contrary material. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in applying a higher net profit rate than declared by the assessee under Section 44AD, and whether the eligibility criteria for Section 44AD were correctly examined.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD,Section 133A,Section 255(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs Roopa Rai Jaiswal v. The DC/ACIT (Central) 186/167, Old Katra Allahabad Allahabad (U.P) TAN/PAN:AGOPR4913R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R. C. Agrawal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. ORDER UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.:

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 13.12.2022, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 On account of difference of opinion between the Members, who originally heard the appeal, a Third Member was nominated to adjudicate the following questions:-

QUESTIONS OF DIFFERENCE FRAMED BY LD. JUDICIAL MEMBER

(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition of Net Profit

ITA No.17/ALLD/2023 (NP) @ 30% of turn-over is justified when assessee u/s 44AD of the Act had offered NP @ 25.79%.

2.

Whether the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) to confi

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 44AD

All 2,197 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →