COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PARBHAT KUMAR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the ITAT's approach of applying a net profit rate on the basis of best judgment assessment, when there might be unverifiable wages calling for an addition, is a question of fact unless it is shown to be arbitrary or perverse. In this case, the assessment of a 12% net profit rate on contract receipts was not demonstrated to be arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the ITAT's order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-tax, Hisar, has appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, for Assessment Year 2001-02. The assessee is M/s Parbhat Kumar Contractor, Sirsa. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the returned income primarily because the assessee's claim for wages was found to be unverifiable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] made further additions. The ITAT, while considering the issue of unverifiable wages, decided to apply a net profit rate of 12% on contract receipts, excluding the cost of material supplied by the department. The ITAT relied on its previous decision in the case of M/s Ess Ess Builders (P) Ltd.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in directing to determine the net profit by applying a net profit rate of 12% on contract receipts of Rs.91,65,025/-, excluding the cost of material supplied by the department, subject to the allowability of salary and interest paid to partners, without appreciating that the assessee maintained account books and the AO/CIT(A) had made separate additions of Rs.16,48,675/- by proving that the claim of labour payable was not genuine and further that there was a clear admission on behalf of the assessee during appellate proceedings before the ITAT that the account of wages is unverifiable? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions for the assessee regarding this issue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred by applying a net profit rate of 12% on contract receipts, excluding the cost of material supplied by the department. They contended that the assessee maintained account books, and the AO/CIT(A) had made additions based on the unverifiable nature of labour claims and an admission by the assessee regarding unverifiable wages. The Revenue questioned the ITAT's decision to disregard the AO/CIT(A)'s findings and the assessee's admission.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I. T. A. No. 293 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 293 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 14, 2008.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Hisar .... Appellant Vs.
M/s Parbhat Kumar Contractor, Sirsa .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Standing Counsel for C. I. T. - appellant. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A” Chandigarh passed in ITA No.323/Chandi/2005 dated 25.05.2007 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial question of law :- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was right in law in directing to determine the net profit by applying a net profit rate of 12% on contract receipts of Rs.91,65,025/-, excluding the cost of material supplied by the department subject to allowability of salary and interest paid to the
I. T. A. No. 293 of 2008 2 partners, without appreciating that the assessee is maintaining account books and the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) have made separate addition of Rs.16,48,675/- by proving that the claim of labour payable was not genuine and further that there was clear admission on behalf of the assessee during appellate proceedings before Ld. I.T.A.T. that the account of wages is unverifiable ?” The assessee is a contractor engaged in the work of civil construction and filed its return for the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer made addition to the returned income mainly on account of claim for wages being found to be not verifiable. On appeal of the assessee, CIT (A) made further additions. Finally, the issue was considered by the Tribunal. While considering the issue of addition on account of unverifiable wages, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to apply reasonable rate of profit, which was assessed at the rate of 12% on contract receipts, excluding the material supplied by the department. The Tribunal also relied upon its judgment in the case of M/s Ess Ess Builders (P) Ltd. (in I.T.A. No.707/Chandi/1997 for the assessment year 93-94, order dated 16.09.2003). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that there may be unverifiable wages which may call for addition to income, but not to the extent assessed by CIT (A). Applying net profit rate on the basis of best judgment, assessment in a given situation will be a question of fact unless, such an assessment is shown to be arbitrary or perverse. In the present case, it cannot be held that any substantial question of law arises. Assessment of 12% of net profit rate of contract receipt is not shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
I. T. A. No. 293 of 2008 3 No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 14, 2008
( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026