What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no material to support the assessee's claim that the 8% estimation by the CIT(A) was excessive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Assessing Officer estimated the assessee's income at 9% of gross receipts due to lack of supporting documents for labour charges and purchases. The CIT(A) reduced this to 8%.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of income by the CIT(A) at 8% of gross receipts was justified, or if it should be reduced to the rate proposed by the assessee.

M/S J.S. Construction, Hzb vs ITO | ITAT Ranchi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Adv

For Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Hearing: 26/11Pronounced: 27/11

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the CIT(A), Hazaribag, dated 28.6.2017 for the assessment year

2012-13.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the

CIT(A) was not was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer

to estimate the income of the assesse by applying rate of 8% on

gross receipts in place of 9% made by the Assessing Officer.

The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed

that the muster roll of labour charges for payment of

P a g e 1 | 3

ITA No. 227/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 13

Rs.71,49,368/- and supporting materials for purchase of

Rs.1,33,56,830/- were not produced before him. Further, details

of credit balance of Rs.2,76,394/- as on 31.3.2012 against labour

charges was also not proved. Therefore, he estimated the income

of the assesse by applying the rate of 9% of the civil contract

receipts and arrived at the income of Rs.20,90,519/-.

On appeal, the CIT(A) reduced the same to 8% of the gross

civil contract receipts of Rs.2,32,27,986/- thereby allowing relief of

Rs.2,32,280/- to the assesse.

Before me, ld A.R. of the assesse submitted that estimation

made at 8% of the gross contract receipts is on higher side and

same should be estimated by applying rate of 1.97% as shown by

the assesse.

Ld D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the CIT(A).

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the

materials on record, I find that rejection of books of account by the

Assessing Officer is not in dispute before me. The only submission

of ld A.R. is that estimation of income by applying rate of 8% to the

gross contract receipts is on higher side and same should be

reduced. Ld A.R. of the assesse submitted that the income should

be estimated @ 1.97%. I find that ld A.R. has not brought any

P a g e 2 | 3

ITA No. 227/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 13

material on record to show that the income computed by the CIT(A)

at 8% of the gross contract receipts is excessive. Therefore, I find

no good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is

hereby confirmed and ground of appeal of the assesse is rejected.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 27 /11/2018. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 27/11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. J.S.Construction, C/O. Sushil Kumar, At:Chedra, Bishnugarh, Hazaribag 2. The respondent:ITO, Ward 1(2), Hazaribag 3. The CIT(A)- Hazaribag 4. Pr.CIT- Hazaribag 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//

Sr. Pvt.secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour

P a g e 3 | 3

M/S J.S. CONSTRUCTION,HZB vs. ITO WARD-1(2), HAZARIBAGH

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments