DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S POWER MAX (I) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal deleted the addition on undisclosed income, finding that the assessee's declared net profit rate was higher than the average of the preceding five years. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance under Section 14A, noting that the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments.
What were the facts?
The assessee's documents were destroyed in a fire, making it difficult to provide details to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made an addition of 1% of turnover as income and a disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) granted partial relief on the addition and restricted the Section 14A disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether an addition on account of undisclosed income is warranted when the assessee's net profit rate is higher than the average of previous years, and whether the disallowance under Section 14A is justified when own funds exceed investments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey]
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri David Z. Chawngthu, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 7th, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : December 21st, 2017
O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-
These are cross-appeals directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 16/02/2015, for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 364/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Power Max (India) Ltd 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 22/12/2010, declaring total income of Rs.1,85,93,534/-. The assessee is in the business of erection and servicing of boilers and pipe lines. As the assessee claimed that a devastating fire had destroyed all his documents including computers, no details, as sought for by the Assessing Officer could be filed. The observed that the assessee company is an Income Tax assessee for more than 25 years and had been declaring taxable profit more than the book profit. The table of the assessee’s turnover, book profit, taxable profit and tax paid is given at para 3.1. of his order. He held that the assessee had no control over the incident of fire and it is not a case of non-cooperation from the assessee. Nevertheless, he made an addition of 1 per cent of the turnover as income of the assessee. Further he made a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act.
On appeal the ld. First Appellate Authority, granted part relief by directing the ld. Assessing Officer to apply the net profit rate of the immediately preceding year to the turnover and treat the same as undisclosed income of Rs.10,80,378/-, as an addition, in the place of addition of Rs.46,97,295/-, made by the Assessing Officer @ 1 per cent of the turnover. On the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, he restricted the disallowance to Rs.32,849/-.
2.1. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, filed an application for adjournment. We reject the same as in our view, it is not a fit case for grant of adjournment. Accordingly, we dispose off the case ex-parte, qua the assessee, on merits, after hearing the ld. D/R.
Heard the ld. D/R. The submission of the assessee that there was a fire accident and consequently certain records have been destroyed and it would be difficult for the company to compile the details from 20 different sites operating during the year, is not disputed by the revenue. In fact, the Assessing Officer accepted that this issue is beyond the control of the assessee. Under these circumstances, making an addition of 1 per cent of the turnover by the Assessing Officer, cannot be upheld on facts. The ld. First Appellate Authority, has directed
3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 364/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Power Max (India) Ltd the Assessing Officer to adopt 4.8 per cent as net profit rate in place of 3.95 per cent declared by the assessee. The assessee, before the ld. CIT(A) furnished that the net profit rate for the previous 5 years come to 3.55 per cent. In our view, under these circumstances of the case, this factual submission of the assessee cannot be disputed. The net profit rate disclosed by the assessee during the impugned Assessment Year, is 3.95 per cent and is more than 3.55 per cent, which is an average for the last 5 years. Thus, no separate addition is called for on this accent. Thus, the addition on undisclosed income to the extent sustained by the ld. CIT(A), is hereby deleted.
4.1. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed and Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed.
The next issue is on the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii).
5.1. The ld. CIT(A) has come to a factual finding that the assessee’s own funds are more than the investments made by it and that the borrowed funds have not been utilized for investments. Against shareholders funds of Rs.6.43 Crores, investments was approximately about Rs.65.69 Lakhs. This factual position could not be controverted by the ld. D/R. Thus, we uphold this finding of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the revenue.
All other grounds are general in nature.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026