TIWARI CONSTRUCTION,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2(1), GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence regarding the duplication of figures in the 'insight data' which was not presented before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering this new evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a construction firm, declared a net profit of 1.38% on its reported receipts. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a significant difference between the receipts reported by the assessee and those in the 'insight case details'. The AO added an estimated profit on this difference to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of a difference in receipts, without considering the assessee's claim of duplication in the 'insight data'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 145(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr DR
Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 58/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tiwari Construction Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Gwalior-474002 15 Kailash Vihar, Opp. Income Tax Office City Centre, Gird, Gwalior-474011 PAN : AAEFT2724L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr DR Date of hearing 18.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10046489 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the additions made vide assessment order dated 16.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. The brief facts state that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil construction and earning income from

ITA No.58/Agr/2026

contract receipts. Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2018, for the A.Y. 2018-19, declaring total income at Rs. 15,94,680/- The case was selected for complete scrutiny. The assessing officer noticed from assessee’s P&L account that the receipts shown by the assessee is Rs. 11,53,19,941/-, gross profit is Rs. 1,47,53,901/- and net profit shown is Rs. 15,94,681/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown net profit at the rate of 1.38% of total receipts of 11,53,19,941/-. It was further noticed from the insight case details that the assessee received total receipt of Rs. 22,59,73,269/- and there is a difference in amount of Rs. 11,06,53,328/- between insight case details and total receipts. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee seeking assessee to show cause as to why the difference of Rs. 11,06,53,328/-(22,59,73,269-11,53,19,941) should not be taxed. Assessee’s submissions did not satisfy the A.O. in respect of such difference for want of specific explanations in respect of the difference in amount of Rs. 11,06,53,328/- between insight case details and total receipts. Assessing officer, thus estimated such attributable profit at the rate of 1.38% on difference amounts of receipts of Rs. 11,06,53,328/- which comes to Rs. 15,27,015/- and the same was added in the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before ld CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the assessing officer and dismissed assessee’s appeal. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.58/Agr/2026

4.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,27,015/- ignoring the fact that gross receipts as per accounts as well as all receipts reported in Form 26AS, on which TDS was deducted, both were reported under the insight data, and thus, duplicating the figures in the information. 5. We have perused the records and heard ld representative for the assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said estimated additions of Rs. 15,27,015/- made by A.O., ignoring the fact that the figures on the insight data was the result of duplication. 7. At the very outset, we notice that the assessing officer concluded that the appellant assessee was not able to reconcile the difference between the receipts as per insight data and the receipts disclosed in the books, hence, assessee’s books were rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Act. The A.O. found an amount of Rs. 11.06 crores as difference amount, upon which he has estimated the profit element at the rate of 1.38%, which comes to Rs. 15,27,015/- for want of complete reconciliation of gross receipts as appearing in appellant’s return of income as against the figures shown in the insight case details. 8. Assessee has filed a paper book, containing 22 pages before this tribunal. The summary of insight portal information prepared from SCN and 3 | P a g e

ITA No.58/Agr/2026

tabulated details of contract turnover as per Form 26AS viz-a-viz reported in insight portal and taken in account by the assessee, have been filed at page 18 and 19 of assessee’s paper book. This information was neither provided before the ld CIT(A) nor before the ld A.O., thus, requires verification. In such a scenario, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of ld Assessing Officer, who, shall pass order a fresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after taking the aforesaid additional evidences into consideration. We, therefore, direct the assessing officer to verify the duplication of figures from the departmental insight portal with a proper care and caution, so as to avoid duplication of addition of figures. We order accordingly. The aforesaid point is determined accordingly. The assessee’s appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on – 19.05.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 19.05.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra 4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →