“estimation of income”

Assessment ProceduresSection 145Section 1453,061 judgments

The decision most relied on for estimation of income is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on estimation of income

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court

1,465

citing judgments

When purchases are unproved or presumed to be from the grey market, the entire amount of such purchases should not be disallowed; instead, income can be estimated by applying a reasonable gross profit rate to the unaccounted sales or turnover, especially in assessments arising from search proceedings involving seized documents.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court

739

citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court

460

citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT

288 ITR 10 · 2007 · Supreme Court

332

citing judgments

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad

72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court

272

citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court

232

citing judgments

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar

263 ITR 610 · 2003 · High Court

212

citing judgments

When making an addition for unaccounted receipts, on-money, or non-genuine purchases/sales, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element embedded in such transactions, rather than the entire gross amount, particularly when evidence of corresponding expenditure is incomplete. This estimation often involves applying a net profit rate.

Harigopal Singh v. CIT

258 ITR 85 · 2002 · High Court

203

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when an addition to income is made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis.

Judgments citing estimation of income

Ashok Kumar Chilla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleashok Kumar Chilla, Vs. Ito, Ward-15(2), Prop. Vandana Wines, Hyderabad. 4-7-10/3, Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. Pan No. Ahzpc 0717 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None. Department By : Mr. Nilanjan Dey – Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2019. O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, Dated 13/09/2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Estimation Of Income. 3. In This Case, The Assessing Officer Has Estimated The Profit Of The Assessee At 5% On The Cost Of Goods Sold, Which Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A). 4. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. It Is Noticed That The Itat, Hyderabad ‘B' Bench In The Case Of Yadagiri Kummari Vs. Ito In Ita No. 2035/Hyd/2018, Dated 30/01/2019 Has Consistently (Ashok Kumar Chilla)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Nilanjan Dey – DR

Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, dated 13/09/2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is estimation of income. 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer has estimated the profit of the assessee at 5% on the cost of goods sold, which was confirmed

Ramesh Maddi, Siddipet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Siddipet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 459/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleramesh Maddi, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. M/S. Renuka Wines, Siddipet. No. 4-81, Dumpalapally (V), Dubbak (M), Siddipet. Pan No. Ajdpm 1505 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. S. Sandhya - Adv. Department By : Mrs. Neeju Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2019. O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, Dated 22/12/2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Estimation Of Income. 3. In This Case, The Assessing Officer Has Estimated The Profit Of The Assessee At 5% On The Cost Of Goods Sold. 4. On Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Scaled Down The Profit Of The Assessee At 4%. 5. Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Itat, Hyderabad ‘B' Bench In The Case Of Yadagiri Kummari Vs. Ito In Ita No. 2035/Hyd/2018, Dated 30/01/2019 Has Consistently Held That (Ramesh Maddi)

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya - AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Neeju Gupta – DR

Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, dated 22/12/2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is estimation of income. 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer has estimated the profit of the assessee at 5% on the cost of goods sold. 4. On appeal

Narsingraj Chermani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1924/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blenarsing Raj Chermani, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2), H.No. 18-7-179/5/4, Outside Hyderabad. Gowlipura, Hyderabad. Pan No. Adxpc 4817 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Shanthi Kumar-Adv. Department By : Mr. Nilanjan Dey – Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2019. O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, Dated 19/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Estimation Of Income. 3. In This Case, The Assessing Officer Has Estimated The Profit Of The Assessee At 5% On The Cost Of Goods Sold, Which Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A). 4. Before Me, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Itat, Hyderabad ‘B' Bench In The Case Of Yadagiri Kummari Vs. Ito In Ita No. 2035/Hyd/2018, Dated 30/01/2019 Has Consistently Held That Estimation Of Profit At 3% In Imfl Business Carried By The Assessee Is Reasonable. (Narsingraj Chermani)

For Appellant: Shri B. Shanthi Kumar-AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nilanjan Dey – DR

Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, dated 19/09/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is estimation of income. 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer has estimated the profit of the assessee at 5% on the cost of goods sold, which was confirmed

D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S Bansidhar Vyapar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

statement, however, the AO taking into consideration the modus operandi as admitted by Shri Suresh Sethi before the DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, the AO estimated the income of the assessee at Rs. 1 cr. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to delete ... even though the AO acknowledges that Shri Suresh Sethi by a sworn affidavit before the Notary Public has retracted the statement, however, he estimated the income of assessee at Rs. 1 cr. On appeal, it was brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) that no cheques were issued

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Radiant Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the

ITA 4146/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-25(3), M/S Radiant Gems, Room No.601, C-10, 6Th 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Floor, Pratyakshakar Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aajfr3662E Co No.153/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4146/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Radiant Gems, Acit-25(3), 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Room No.601, C-10, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aajfr3662E

Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

estimation of profit to 3% from 12.5%, but failed to appreciate the C.O. No.153/Mum/2018 M/s Radiant Gems facts in right perspective that before estimation of income, the books of accounts should be rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that

Ambrish Sarin, Agra vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 372/AGR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

assessee and the basic issues identified for examination under limited scrutiny which as per judicial opinion is a material consideration for estimation of income while rejecting books of account on proceeding under wrong section 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A No. 372/Agra/2018 4 4. Brief facts of the case

Express Wheels, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialita No.125 125/Ctk/2019: Assessment Yea Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

income. However, concealed the particulars of its income. However, concealed the particulars of its income. However, the CIT(A) felt that the estimation of income is unreasonable and, accordingly, that the estimation of income is unreasonable and, accordingly, that the estimation of income is unreasonable and, accordingly, reduced the same

Express Wheels, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 126/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialita No.125 125/Ctk/2019: Assessment Yea Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Express Wheels, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 125/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 272ASection 272BSection 273

authorities below were of the opinion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income. However, the CIT(A) felt that the estimation of income is unreasonable and, accordingly, reduced the same to 10% and confirmed the addition of Rs.7,31,880/-. 7. From the above, it is clear

Shri Gopal Soni, Mandsaur vs. Addll. CIT, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 714/IND/2017[02-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

with books of accounts maintained by the assessee, the same are liable to be rejected u/s 145(2) of the Act and accordingly estimated the income for Assessment Year 2001-02 at Rs.6,00,000/- inter alia including the amount offered during the course of survey of Rs.5 ... challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.5,97,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- towards estimation of income from business and undisclosed income surrendered during the course of survey. 23. We observe that during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act various

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 713/IND/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Inco Me-Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 712/IND/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Shri Nitin Raj Jain, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 68

assessee at Rs. 11,00,00,000/- as against Rs. 10,53,89,705/- and applied GP rate of 0.80% to estimate the income of the assessee. Consequently the AO has made the addition of Rs. 5,13,878/- on this account. The assessee challenged the action ... Thus the AO has pointed out various defects in the books of account and accordingly rightly rejected the book result. The AO has estimated the income 7 Shri Nitin Raj Jain, Jaipur. of the assessee based on the past history and applied the GP as declared by the assessee

Rajesh Popli, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: For Imposition Of Penalty U/S271(L)(C).

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Proxy for Shri Vishal Mohan)For Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

further submitted that no such case of under billing has been brought on record by any of the authorities and as such only estimation of income have been made on the basis of the alleged statement of the assessee. It is settled law that in case of estimation of income

Bhupal Reddy Gangidi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2264/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhupal Reddy Gangidi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 9(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Ajfpg 0580R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 04/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

were issued and served on the assessee. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 03/03/2016 by estimating the income of the assessee at 5% of Rs. 17,37,984/- towards stock sold/stock put for sale of Rs. 3,47,59,676, Rs. 55,516/- towards ... confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in estimating the income at 5% without properly appreciating the facts stated before him. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made

Bholanath R.Shukla, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-2, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 4505/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

years on merits is as under :- On the facts and circumstances of the case and law learned CIT(A) erred in making estimation of income on higher side as compared to profit returned by the assessee engaged in the same business. Revenue’s appeal 4. One common ground raised ... Parduman Kumar Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) that the authority making the best judgment assessment must make an honest and fair estimate of income of the assessee. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Kerala Vs C. Velukutty

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry vs. K.Venkata Raju, Vemagiri

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 550/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.549 &550/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S K.Venkata Raju Income Tax D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Circle-2(1) Kadiyam Mandalam Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. [Pan :Aabfk4007A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.29 & 30/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.549 & 550/Viz/2018 Respectively) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S K.Venkata Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Income Tax Kadiyam Mandalam Circle-2(1) East Godavari Dist. Rajahmundry [Pan :Aabfk4007A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt Suman Malik, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 3. Ground No. 2 to 5 are related to the estimation of income and the allowance of depreciation from the estimated income. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor filed it’s return of income ... Ld.CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books of accounts and 5 I.T.A. No.549 & 550/Viz/2018 and CO No.29 & 30/Viz/2019 M/s K.Venkata Raju, Kadiyam Mandalam estimation of income. However, the Ld.CIT(A) following the order of the this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2011-12 in I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2016 dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry vs. K.Venkata Raju, Vemagiri

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 549/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt Suman Malik, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

The ITO., Vijayawada vs. Sri Mudda Anil Kumar, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 42/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.42/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Mudda Anil Kumar, Ward-3(2) Prop : M/S Nandini Food Vijayawada Products D.No.21-10/5-35B Teachers Colony Srinagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Alspm7148N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Malik, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.Kameswara Rao, AR

Section 143(3)

assessee is true to the extent of transactions were related to the business transactions. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) held that the estimation of income @10% on undisclosed turnover of Rs.42,29,817/- is reasonable and accordingly confirmed the 10 I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2017 Sri Mudda Anil Kumar, Vijayawada addition of 10% being

The ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry vs. Arun Kumar Mishra, Dowlaiswaram

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the miscellaneous application of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 239/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhm.A.No.01/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.384/Viz/2014 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Arun Kumar Mishra Circle-1(1) Prop : S.V.Constructions Rajahmundry D.No.5-45, Near Sbi Kothapeta Road Dowlaiswaram East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Afxpm1890E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2014 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sri Arun Kumar Mishra Circle-1 Prop : S.V.Constructions Rajahmundry D.No.5-45, Near Sbi Kothapeta Road Dowlaiswaram East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Afxpm1890E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : None सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 144ASection 68

order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to estimate the income @12.5% on the total contract receipts and accordingly allowed the appeal 3 M.A. No.01/Viz/2018 and I.T.A. 239/Viz/2014 Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, Rajahmundry partly. Against the order ... Ld.CIT(A), both the assessee and the revenue have filed cross appeals. The assessee has challenged the estimation of income @12.5% as unreasonable and the revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) stating that the Ld.CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidence against the Rule 46A and erred