ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI WAKIL AHMED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1976/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 January 2019AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument to adopt the net profit rate of 8%, which was accepted by the Revenue in earlier and subsequent years. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration based on this rate.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 50% of the wages and labour charges claimed by the assessee, considering the expenditure highly inflated compared to the previous year. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding no justification for it in the absence of comparable cases.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of wages and labour charges, and if so, what profit rate should be applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA

Hearing: 22.11.2018Pronounced: 16.01.2019

ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by CIT(A)-7, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for AY 2013-14.

2.

The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account of wages & labour charges in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted from the assessment record that the AO compared the expenditure incurred on account of wages and labour charges with that of A.Y. 2012-13 and held the expenditure claimed for the year under consideration is highly inflated and exaggerated and for non-furnishing of proof, the AO disallowed 50% of said claim expenditure. The CIT(A) while deleting the said addition observed that in the absence of comparable cases, the addition made by the AO is not justified. Before us, Ld.AR submitted that in earlier year and subsequent year, the Revenue accepted net profit @ 8% and accordingly prayed to adopt the same for the year under consideration. We find force in the arguments of Ld.AR and, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and we direct the AO to adopt the net profit rate @ 8% and pass order accordingly. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration. Thus, grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →