RAJEEV KANSANA ,MORENA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA, MORENA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 11/AGR/2024Status: HeardITAT Agra28 March 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) correctly estimated the profit at 5% after considering the lack of sufficient documentary evidence from the assessee to support its profit margins. The estimation was deemed reasonable for the assessee's line of business.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer assessed the assessee's income on a presumptive basis under Section 44AF, as the declared net profit was only 0.83%. The assessee's books were audited under Section 44AB, and the turnover exceeded the threshold for presumptive taxation.

What were the issues?

Whether the presumptive taxation provisions under Section 44AF were correctly applied, and if not, what would be a reasonable estimation of profit when documentary evidence is lacking.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AF,Section 44AB,Section 143(3)

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: 28.03.2025

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 08-12- 2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21-03-2016. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under. 2. In the assessment order, Ld. AO invoked the provision of Sec.44AF and assessed income on presumptive basis at Rs.88.94 Lacs. The assessee had declared net profit of 0.83% only. The assessee filed elaborate written submissions during appellate proceedings which were duly considered by Ld. CIT(A). It was noted that the books were duly audited u/s 44AB. The turnover was above threshold limit of Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the presumptive provisions could not be applied to the case of the assessee. Considering the totality of fact, Ld.CIT(A) estimated profit of 5% and granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

From the facts, it emerges that the assessee could not furnish sufficient documentary evidences in support of its profit margins. The relevant bills and vouchers were not furnished. In such a situation, the authorities would be left with no option but to estimate the income of the assessee. The estimation of 5%, in our opinion, in assessee’s line of business is quite reasonable. The Ld. AR could not controvert the impugned estimation with concrete evidences. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with.

4.

The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28.03.2025 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT AGRA

More judgments on Section 44AF

All 212 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AF →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →