What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the facts identical to a previous case where profit was determined at 6% of gross turnover. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to adopt 6% of gross turnover as taxable profit.

The assessee, engaged in government contracts, did not maintain books of accounts. The Assessing Officer estimated profit at 8% of gross receipts, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the estimation of profit from contract business in the absence of proper books of accounts.

Sri Ramavtar Agarwal, Uttar… vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Date of concluding the hearing : November 27th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : December 12th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jalpaiguri, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 25/05/2017, for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

The assessee is an individual and is in the business of undertaking various contracts from Government Departments. Admittedly, he does not maintain books of accounts. The Assessing Officer at page 1 of his assessment order states that the assessee declared profit of 5.19% of gross contract receipts and that these profits include JCB hire charges, interest and miscellaneous income received. The Assessing Officer estimated the profit from contract business at 8%. The ld. CIT(A) upheld these findings of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before me.

After hearing rival contentions, I dismiss Ground Nos. 2 & 3 as not pressed.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Ramavtar Agarwal 5. On Ground No.1, I find that the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Krishna Ghosh vs. ACIT; dt. 03/08/2016, under identical circumstances thought it fit to determine the net profit @ 6% of the gross turnover. I am of the opinion that the facts of this case are identical with the facts of the case in the case of Sri Krishna Ghosh (supra). Hence, I direct the Assessing Officer to adopt 6% of the gross turnover as taxable profit in this case. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Kolkata, the 12th day of December, 2018. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 12.12.2018 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Sri Ramavtar Agarwal C/o Krishna Construction N.S. Road, Islampur Uttar Dinajpur – 733 202 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Malda 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

SRI RAMAVTAR AGARWAL,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, MALDA, MALDA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments