SHREE DHAYARESHWAR MAJUR SAH SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the issue required factual verification to ensure no double addition of turnover receipts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the lower authorities' action of assessing income at 9% of gross turnover receipts under Section 44AD, invoking Sections 147 and 144. The primary contention was that the turnover period was wrongly adopted, leading to a double addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities wrongly adopted the assessee's turnover period, resulting in a double addition of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’s order dated 13.11.2021 passed in case no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1036906752(1) involving proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Delay of 10 days in filing of the instant appeal stands condoned since falling in Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak period.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee challenges both the learned lower authorities’ action herein assessing at the rate of 9% qua gross turnover receipts of Rs.97,08,770/- thereby invoking section 44AD of the Act after taking recourse to section 147 r.w.s. 144 mechanism.
Learned counsel’s sole substantive plea in light of the assessee’s second ground is that both the lower authorities have wrongly adopted the assessee’s turnover period resulting in double addition. Mr. Jasnani has strongly supported the same. Face with this situation, I am of the opinion that the instant issue requires more a factual verification than any substantive adjudication. I therefore restore the same back to the Assessing Officer to ensure that there should not be any double addition of assessee’s turnover receipts; as the case may be. Ordered accordingly. No other ground or argument has been pressed during the course of hearing. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced on this 26th day of July, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 26th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC)
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 →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026