RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that if an assessee maintains books of account as per Section 44AA, they can declare profits lower than the presumptive rate under Section 44AD(1), provided they comply with the conditions in Section 44AD(5). Since the assessee claimed to have maintained books, the lower authorities' orders were set aside.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an assessment under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act on a presumptive basis, estimating profit at 8% despite the assessee claiming to have maintained books of account. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, stating that since the turnover was below Rs. 1 crore and the assessee did not produce books, Section 44AD was applicable.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO can apply Section 44AD on a presumptive basis when the assessee has maintained books of account. Whether the assessee is required to maintain books of account and get them audited if they declare a loss or profit lower than the presumptive rate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai in dated 31.10.2018. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), Chennai u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16 vide order dated 08.12.2017.
2 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in making assessment u/s.44AD of the Act on presumptive basis despite the fact that the assessee has maintained books of account as prescribed u/s.44AA of the Act. For this assessee has raised various grounds and even in concise grounds, he has raised various argumentative issues, which need not tobe reproduced.
At the outset, the assessee stated that the assessment was framed by the AO by applying the provision of section 44AD of the Act by presuming the percentage of income by stating that the assessee has declared a loss of Rs.6,64,234/- from the sale of future transactions and accordingly, he is not supposed to maintain the books of account nor to get the books of account audited. According to AO, since the total turnover / gross receipts during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to this assessment year 2015-16 does not exceed the amount of Rs.1 crore and the assessee’s nature of business being sale of future transactions (derivatives in recognized stock exchange) and hence, falls under eligible business as defined u/s.44AD of the Act. Therefore, the AO computed profit rate @ 8% and made addition of Rs.33,520/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred
3 appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO by observing in para 5.1 as under:- “5.1 The appellant has reiterated the submissions raised before the AO. The appellant has not maintained books of accounts. The turnover of the appellant was below Rs.1 crore. In such circumstances, the only option before the AO is to apply the provisions of Section 44AD. Had the appellant produced books of accounts, there was no necessity to assess the deemed income. The appellant has declared in his return that he is not liable for maintaining and auditing books of accounts.”
3.1 In view of the above, the assessee stated once he has maintained books of account and produced before the AO during the course of scrutiny assessment, the AO is supposed to make assessment as per the provisions of the Act and to determine the true income from the accounts particularly when the assessee has maintained books of account in term of section 44AA of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee stated that matter can be remanded back to the file of the AO to make assessment in term of normal provisions and not u/s.44AD of the Act.
On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR supported the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that admittedly the AO has made assessment by invoking provisions of section 44AD of the Act
4 and estimated profit rate on presumptive basis. The assessee before us made statement at bar that he has maintained books of account, which were produced before the AO during scrutiny assessment proceedings and even now he is ready to produce before the AO, in case the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO. We noted from the provisions of section 44AD, sub-section (5), as existed during the relevant assessment year 2015-16 and the same reads as under:- (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than the profits and gains specified in sub- section (1) and whose total income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall be required to keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as required under sub-section (2) of section 44AA and get them audited and furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB.
5.1 From the above provision, it is clear that the assessee can declare lower profit also in case the assessee has maintained books of account and in this case, as claimed by the assessee before Bench that he has maintained books of account, in that eventuality we are of the view that the orders of lower authorities needs set aside. Hence, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and matter remanded back to the file of the AO for making assessment on the basis of books of account. Accordingly, the AO will reframe the 5 assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of being hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April, 2022 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026