DHARAM NATH,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's background. It directed the AO to re-compute income by applying a 3% profit rate on balance receipts.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a small labor contractor, did not file income tax returns. The case was reopened based on contract receipts, and the AO made an addition based on a declared profit rate. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the profit estimation by the AO was fair, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed in assessing the income of a small labor contractor.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
(िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Dharam Nath ITO Ward-1 House No. 179 Ward No 15 Yamuna Nagar, बनाम/ Vs. Near Ram Janki Mandir Haryana 135001 Vijay Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana - 135001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AEMPN-9817-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Virendra Bhatia (CA) – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 26-11-2025 : आदेश / O R D E R
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010- 11 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 19-02-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s. 147of the Act on 28-11-2017. The registry has noted delay of 143 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. It has been submitted that delay has occurred due to the fact that communications were sent on the e-mail address of assessee’s counsel and the assessee was not aware of impugned order.
From case records, it emerges that the assessee is a small labor contractor. The assessee did not file return of income. The case was reopened on the ground that the assessee received contract receipts of Rs.79.40 Lacs from Haryana Distillery, Yamuna Nagar. During reopening proceedings, the assessee declared profit rate of 12.375% on receipts of Rs.16 Lacs. The Ld. AO applied same rate of profit on balance receipts of Rs.63.74 Lacs and made addition of Rs.7.88 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for want of any representation from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal.
Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the background of the assessee, I admit the appeal of the assessee. On merits, the only prayer of Ld. AR is fair estimation of profit element. Considering the fact that the assessee is a small labor contractor, I direct Ld. AO to apply profit rate of 3% on balance receipts of Rs.63.74 Lacs and re-compute the income of the assessee.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Arun Aloysius Barnes vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026