9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Direction to adopt book results for income from truck plying business. Analysis: The appeal was against an order passed by the Dy. CIT(A) under section 154 of the IT Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1990-91. The Revenue's main contention was regarding the direction given by the Dy. CIT(A) to adopt the book results concerning income from the truck plying business. Initially, the AO applied a profit rate of 35% on truck plying receipts and 12% on contract receipts. In the appeal, the CIT(A) reduced the profit rate on contract receipts to 11% and directed that the profit rate declared on truck plying receipts by the assessee should be as per books. However, as the expenses were not separately shown in the books, the AO found it challenging to implement the original order. Subsequently, the assessee submitted an application under section 154, providing an estimated bifurcation of expenses related to the truck plying business. The Dy. CIT(A) directed the AO to consider these details and give effect to the appellate order accordingly. The Departmental Representative argued that the Dy. CIT(A) erred in accepting the estimated bifurcation of expenses without following the procedure under rule 46A, which required giving an opportunity to the AO to comment on such details. The counsel for the assessee clarified that no new material was submitted by the assessee, and the bifurcated expenses were prepared from the existing books of accounts. It was contended that as per rule 46A, no opportunity needed to be given to the AO in such cases. Additionally, it was highlighted that the AO had not passed any appeal effect order, and the matter had become time-barred. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the Dy. CIT(A) had appropriately directed the AO to consider the estimated bifurcation of expenses provided by the assessee to implement the appellate order. The Tribunal noted that the AO had expressed difficulty in giving effect to the earlier order, and the assessee's submission of bifurcated expenses was based on existing records. The Tribunal concluded that the Dy. CIT(A)'s decision was reasonable, not contrary to the law, and did not violate rule 46A. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that it lacked merit.
|
