HARI MOHAN ,GUJRAT vs. DCIT-3, MATHURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 362/AGR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's net profit rate was better than previous years and a 12% estimation was not justified, especially when Section 44AD provides for a presumptive income of 8%. The AO was directed to estimate income at 6.5% of the declared turnover.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a civil contractor, declared income of Rs. 16.52 Lacs. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated income at 12% on best judgment basis due to lack of satisfactory response. Later, the AO reopened the case based on higher contractual receipts but again estimated income at 12%.

What were the issues?

The main issue was the justification of the AO's estimation of the assessee's income at 12% of turnover, and whether a lower presumptive rate should be applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Pronounced: 22.04.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 362/Agr/2018
ITA No. 363/Agr/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year:2012-13) And 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year:2012-13) Shri Hari Mohan DCIT-3, बनाम/ 82, Chitrakut Apartments, Mathura. Near Bapu Dargah, Gorwa, Vs. Vadodara, Gujrat. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AHPPM-5638-N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of separate orders of first appellate authority. First, we take up appeal which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [CIT(A)] on 28-02- 2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 144 on 04-03- 2015. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under.

2.

From case records, it emerges that the assessee is a civil contractor and it filed returned income of Rs.16.52 Lacs. The assessee reflected profit of Rs.15.06 Lacs against gross receipts of Rs.301.05 Lacs. In the absence of any satisfactory response from the assessee, Ld.AO estimated income of 12% and made addition of Rs.21.06 Lacs on best judgement basis. During first appeal, the assessee tabulated that its Net profit for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 was 1.03%, 4.74% and 5% and accordingly, assailed impugned estimation. However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by Ld. AO on the ground that actual contractual receipts were Rs.540.32 Lacs. The assessee stated that receipts include closing work-in-progress whereas contractor had shown this amount as work done and deducted TDS on the same. The Ld. AO, in para-6, concurred with the said submissions but again ended up making estimation of 12% on gross receipts of Rs.540.32 Lacs. The Ld. CIT confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us vide .

4.

Upon perusal of factual matrix, it could be seen that though the assessee is having high turnover, it has failed to furnish books of accounts before lower authorities in any of the proceedings. It is another fact that the assessee’s net profit rate in this year is much better than the profit rate reflected in earlier years. Considering this fact, higher estimation of 12% is not justified since 44AD itself provide for presumptive income of 8%. Considering the facts of the case, we direct Ld. AO to estimate the income @6.5% of turnover as declared by the assessee. The Ld. AO has concurred that assessee’s receipts include WIP though TDS on contractual payments had been deducted by contractor. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to accept the turnover as declared by the assessee and recompute the income of the assessee.

5.

Both the appeals stand partly allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →