DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4388/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that while the rejection of books under section 145(3) and profit estimation were the subject of the appeal, a detailed factual matrix was not extensively required. The Tribunal noted that in the preceding assessment year 2017-18, the assessee's profit rate was assessed at 2.06% for retail loan business agent activity, and in AY 2016-17, it was 1.82%, both under section 143(3) assessments. Considering these past figures and in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to estimate a lumpsum profit rate of 2.25% for the current assessment year. This rate is to be applied with the specific rider that it shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument was pressed by either party.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Axiom Associates, has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The core of the dispute revolves around the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent estimation of profit at 7% by the Assessing Officer, which was upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is aggrieved by this action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide on the rejection of the assessee's books under section 145(3) of the Act and the subsequent estimation of profit at 7%. Assessee's contentions: The assessee is aggrieved by the rejection of its books of accounts under section 145(3) and the estimation of profit at 7% by the lower authorities. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee's representatives, Sh. Tarun Kapoor, CA and Sh. J.C. Kapoor, CA, beyond their grievance against the lower authorities' actions. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Department's representative, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145(3),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: CA Sh. J.C. Kapoor, CA
Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076265828(1), dated 16.05.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that there is hardly much a need for the tribunal to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that the assessee herein is aggrieved against both the lower authorities’ action inter alia rejecting its books under section 145(3) of the Act followed by its profit estimation @ 7%; in assessment order, as upheld in the lower appellant discussion.

3.

It is next noticed that so far as the impugned GP estimation is concerned, the assessee stood assessed @ 2.06% in retail loan business agent activity in the preceding assessment year 2017-18 and @ 1.82 in AY 2016-17 involving section 143(3) assessment as evident from the records. That being case and in the larger interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that a lumpsum profit rate of 2.25% herein in these peculiar facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not he treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed.

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →