Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(ि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.
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.
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 ITA No.362/Agr/2018.
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.
Both the appeals stand partly allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.