ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ARCHANA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, holding that the defects pointed out by the AO were technical and did not warrant rejection of the books of account. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's action of estimating net profit.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books of account and estimated net profit at 3% of turnover. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, finding that the assessee had produced purchase bills and confirmations for most of its purchases.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account and estimating the net profit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Padamchand Ramgopal40 citing76 ITR 719 · 1970 · SC
- R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers v. CIT29 citing279 ITR 457 · 2005 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
O R D E R
PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:
- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, is directed against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’s order dated 16.12.2015 in case No.194/CIT(A)-4/Ward-12(2)/Kol/14-15, reversing the Assessing Officer’s action rejecting assessee’s books thereby estimating net profit @ 3% to the tune of ₹74,20,370/-, in proceedings u/s 144/145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is therefore proceed ex parte.
Learned Departmental Representative takes us to CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition of ₹74,20,370/- (supra) made in A.Y. 2010-11 ITO Wd-12-(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Archana Construction Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 assessment order dated 18.03.2013 after rejecting relevant books of account as follows:- “4.3 I have considered the entire spectrum of the matter considering both the rival contentions. The pertinent issue is considered from both the appellant as well as the Assessing Officer's perceptions. I find that the short issue at hand in the appeal on these grounds is on whether the AO was justified in applying NP @ 3% of turnover at ₹74,20,370/- or not. I find that the appellant’s AR has lucidly narrated the modus operandi of the appellant’s business in its explanation contained in paras I & II of its submission supra. That more than 99% of purchase is from HCL and that all the bills of purchases have been produced and all the transactions have been confirmed by HCL Ltd., in response to the notice issued in this regard. That out of total purchases of ₹24,59,07,263/- only bills of purchase of accessories of ₹2,00,920/- from M/s J.N.S. Enterprise could not be produced but even in this case the payment is through the banking channel & the company is regularly filing Sales Tax Return. The accounts of the company are regularly audited. The defects in the stock register are technical in nature and have no effect on the profit/loss of the company and this cannot be the basis to reject the accounts maintained in normal course of business. The absence of stock register itself would not justify the rejection of the books of account unless coupled with certain other factors. There was no finding to the extent that the accounts were not correct and complete or that the AO was of the opinion that the income could not be determined from the accounts maintained by the assessee. I do not find any convincing basis for the AO to estimate that the company earned net profit of 3% on the gross turnover. This is the first year of business, the company has capital of ₹23,10,000/-. The company has gross profit of ₹17,28,375/- on a turnover of ₹24,73,45,734/- and the gross profit to sales ratio comes to 0.70%. The company has taken loan from bank & other for this business. The company has to pass on the discount and incur various other expenses for the business. There is no palpable reason for the AO to estimate that the company has earned net profit @ 3% i.e. ₹74,20,372/-. The AO has only pointed out technical defects in the entry in the stock register which has also been rectified in the same year and it has no impact on the profit disclosed by the company. This cannot be the reason to reject the accounts u/s. 145(3). The books cannot be rejected on insignificant mistake a held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Padmachand – 76 ITR 719. The jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashoke Refractories Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 457 has also given the same view. Having regard to the entire factum of the matter and having also considered the judicial precedence in this regard as in the foregoing. I do not find any merit in the action of the AO in rejecting the books and estimating the net profit @ 3%. The action of the AO thus stands reversed and the said estimation deleted.”
It is vehemently argued at the Revenue’s behest that the Assessing Officer had rightly rejected assessee’s books on account of the fact that the relevant documentary evidence in the nature of copy of challens of mobile
More judgments on Section 145(3)
- M/S. Sarvesh Mercantile Private Limited… vs DCIT Central Circle 2(1), MumbaiITA 1952/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- M/S. Sarvesh Mercantile Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 1951/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S. Sarvesh Mercantile Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 1950/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax… vs Pacifica India Projects Private Limited…ITA 2336/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax… vs Pacifica Builders Private Limited, AhmedabadITA 2335/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026