Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 830 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 144 - estimation of income - trading addition by application of N.P rate @12% on contract receipts subsequently reduced by CIT(A) @8% - HELD THAT:- Keeping in mind the judicial guideline available on issue, that after rejection of accounts, the income of the assessee is to be estimated on some reasonable basis for which comparable case and history of the assessee can be taken as a guide. Keeping in mind the entire factual matrix of the case and finding no evidence or reason for application of N.P rate of 8% we consider it fair, reasonable and logical to apply an average rate of two years referred above i.e (A.Y 2009-10 N.P rate of 1.88% and A.Y 2010-11 N.P rate of 5.25%) which gives N.P rate of 3.50% as against 2.04% shown by the assessee on turnover of ₹ 14,35,07,199/-. See SMT. ARCHANA DUTTA, PROP. M/S DUTTA & DUTTA CONSTRUCTION, CO. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MATHURA [2018 (5) TMI 954 - ITAT AGRA] after due consideration of past history average N.P rate was arrived and applied by the Division Bench. In the referred case, material facts have been found to be same, as assessee therein was also from Mathura and the Assessing officer being the same in person, impugned order was also on same lines and so is the Assessment Year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 68 - AO has made the addition on account of his finding that M/s Easyway Solutions (P) Limited has no capacity and creditworthiness to advance sum to the assessee and the same is unexplained cash credit assessable in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The assessee has thus discharged his onus in the matter. None of the evidence furnished by the assessee has been found to be nongenuine and the evidence has been discarded on the basis of conjectures and hypothesis only. Nothing prevented the authorities to go beyond the transaction and look into the affairs. The assessee in fact made request both at assessment stage as well as appellate stage for examination of the party, but his request was not acceded to without assigning any reason, much less for valid and convincing reason. The assessee could not be punished merely for the reason that advance was received in cash whereas he could do so under the law, prevailing at that time and therefore, the transaction was fully in accordance with the law. The transaction was duly disclosed in the Audited Balance Sheet. In the totality of facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the view that assessee has sufficiently discharged the burden which lay upon it in terms of section 68 and no evidence has been brought on records to prove that the amount represents undisclosed money of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|