CHANGERS FOREX PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(2)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's business nature and the lack of proper documentation. However, it found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 50% profit to be high and directed the AO to restrict the addition to 25% of gross receipts.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in tour and travel business, did not file returns and failed to substantiate transactions. The AO treated receipts as undisclosed income, and the CIT(A) estimated profit at 50% of gross receipts due to lack of evidence for expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether the estimation of profit at 50% of gross receipts by the CIT(A) was justified in the absence of books of account and supporting evidence for expenses.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Galileo Nederland BV v. DCIT6 citing51 Taxmann.com 419 · 2014
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16,, Mumbai dated 15/09/2017 for A.Y.2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009- 10 in the matter of order passed u/s.144 r.w.Section 147 of the IT Act. 2. Common grievance of assessee in all the years pertains to computing the profit from business of tour and travels at 50% of the gross receipts. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.
1083 & 1084/Mum/2018 M/s. Changers Forex Pvt. Ltd., 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company did not file its return of income for A.Y.2007-08. As per individual transaction statement of AIR & CIB information about financial activities, the assessee had earned Rs.10,31,670/- as commission / professional income in A.Y.2007-08. As per AIR report of the assessee, the total transactions recorded were Rs.10,31,676/-. Since the assessee did not file any return of income and also failed to substantiate the said transactions, the AO treated the said receipts as undisclosed income of the assessee and assessed the same to tax.
Before the CIT(A) it was contended that AO was not justified in taking entire receipts as its income. However, after making enquiry CIT(A) found that the assessee company is engaged in the business of money changers and related activities. In the bank accounts various payments received from its customers on account of management of their tours and travels and hotel payments were credited. Details regarding receipts and expenses were collected. From the details collected it was revealed that the gross receipts of the assessee tor the year under consideration were Rs.38,15,771/-. The receipts were determined after giving credit for all expenses which were incurred by the assessee through banking channels. The assessee claimed that the assessee company had incurred many expenses in cash also. But assessee could not produce necessary evidences.
1083 & 1084/Mum/2018 M/s. Changers Forex Pvt. Ltd., 6. Vide order sheet noting dated 24.08.2017 the assessee was informed by CIT(A) that from the details of bank accounts collected it was seen that after giving credit of all outgoing payments the gross receipts of the assessee was Rs.38,15,771/-. In support of its claim it could not produce the copy of the bills and vouchers. The assessee had not maintained regular books of account. It was claimed that for carrying the business some of the expenses have to be incurred by the assessee.
In view of the above discussion and in absence of any document indicating incurring of expenditure, the CIT(A) estimated net income of 50% of the gross receipts as business income against which assessee is in further appeal before us. Learned AR appearing on behalf of the assessee cited various judicial pronouncements in support of the contention that 10% of the gross receipts is reasonable even while rejecting the books of accounts and estimating profit.
Learned AR also placed before us net profit rate for the A.Y.2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 which ranges from 3.01% to 25.10%. Copy of profit and loss account was also placed before us which indicate various expenditure incurred by the assessee, wherein during the year ending on 31/03/2007 assessee had shown net earning of Rs.1,14,891/- out of gross receipts of Rs.38,15,771/-.
1083 & 1084/Mum/2018 M/s. Changers Forex Pvt. Ltd., 9. On the other hand, it was contended by learned DR that a clear finding has been recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that gross receipts of Rs.38,15,771/- was after giving credit for all outgoing payments. She contended that no further relief should be given and the CIT(A) is very reasonably estimated profit at 50% of the gross receipts.
We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record we found that assessee company was engaged in the business of tours and travels including booking of train / flight tickets, hotel booking, etc. It was having an office in the residential area of Lokhandwala, Andheri West, wherein various customers walk-in directly to the shop, book the ticket / hotel, make payment (mostly by cash / card) and return with confirmed ticket / hotel booking. Assessee was having Card Swiping Machines from Centurian Bank, ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank. Since the nature of business is such that 100% of the amount is taken as Advance, Assessee used to accept payments either by cash or card (though swipe-machine). Further, assessee was also required to make the payments to Vendors immediately viz. Shree Sati Travels Private Ltd, Riya Travel & Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd., etc. within 3-7 days for the booking done. It is also a matter of record that assessee did not appear before the AO, therefore, assessment was framed u/s.144 of the IT Act. We also observe that a clear finding has been recorded by CIT(A) at para 6.3 to the effect that after giving
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 →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- 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