Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Amarjit Singh Versus Income-Tax Officer

2016 (6) TMI 781 - ITAT AMRITSAR

Estimation of profit at eight per cent. on the assessee's contractual receipts under the provisions of section 44AD - assessee is a civil contractor - Held that:- Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has observed in the impugned order that the books of account produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings cannot be relied on, as they had been prepared only when the Assessing Officer had detected that the total contract receipts had not been declared by the assessee in his return of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not been done in the present case. The books produced cannot be disregarded merely on a specious observation that they are not reliable, having been prepared after detection. The undisputed fact remains that these books were duly produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer did not reject them. It is not a case of levy of concealment penalty, where change of stand after detection may be detrimental. - Therefore, this issue is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oblivion of this and merely reiterated that the assessee was having land holding of 110 acres and not 75 acres, as had also been wrongly held by the Assessing Officer. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has fallen in error in upholding the Assessing Officer's action in assessing agricultural income of the assessee at ₹ 34,30,758. This conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is found to be a result of complete misreading and non-reading of the aforesaid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

75 acres comes to ₹ 27,500 x 75 = ₹ 20,62,500 and not of ₹ 35,34,722, as assessed. Therefore, the amount of ₹ 35,34,722 minus ₹ 20,62,500 = ₹ 14,72,222 is deleted from the addition made and the addition is sustained to the extent of ₹ 20,62,500. - I. T. A. No. 759 (Asr)/2014 - Dated:- 8-1-2016 - A. D. Jain (Judicial Member) For the Petitioner : Y. K. Sud For the Respondent : Ratinder Kaur ORDER A. D. Jain (Judicial Member) 1. This is the assessee's a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ome-tax (Appeals) and Assessing Officer failed to understand the clear provisions of the law and case law cited that section 44AD provisions cannot be applied to the cases where the contractual receipts are over 40 lakhs. 3. That both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the books of account produced by the assessee at the time of making assessment should have been examined and income could have been estimated by the Assessing Officer after .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate and dispose of submissions made by the assessee." 2. The first issue, comprising ground Nos. 1 to 4, is the assessee's challenge to the action of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in sustaining the estimation of profit at eight per cent. on the assessee's contractual receipts under the provisions of section 44AD of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee is a civil contractor. He filed his return of income fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ineers Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 44,72,839), U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (Rs. 21,01,685), deputy project manager, UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (Rs. 25,371) and deputy project manager BCU-II (Rs. 1,43,068), whereas the assessee had shown contract receipts in his return only at ₹ 15,42,131 from U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. On further enquiries, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had also received contract receipts of ₹ 2,96,910 from IJM Company, Jaipur, apart from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t to tax. 4. While upholding the aforesaid action of the Assessing Officer, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer had worked out the net profit of the assessee from the contract business by applying a net profit rate of eight per cent. since the assessee had himself declared a net profit rate at eight per cent. on the part of the contract receipts declared in the return ; that the books of account produced by the assessee during the assessment proce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Before this Bench, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), while wrongly upholding the Assessing Officer's action in estimating the net profit at eight per cent. on the contract receipts of the assessee under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the books of account produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the assessee is a civil sub-contractor, carrying out the work of laying foundations for bridges. Before the Assessing Officer, in the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed his books of account. However, without rejecting the books and without pointing out any defects therein, the Assessing Officer estimated the assessee's income under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act even though the assessee's income was admittedly of more than ₹ 40,00,000. In this regard, the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e also filed before the Assessing Officer, who neither rejected the assessee's books of account, nor pointed out any defect therein, nor took them into consideration. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has observed in the impugned order that the books of account produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings cannot be relied on, as they had been prepared only when the Assessing Officer had detected that the total contract receipts had not been declared by the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ein. This has illegally not been done in the present case. The books produced cannot be disregarded merely on a specious observation that they are not reliable, having been prepared after detection. The undisputed fact remains that these books were duly produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer did not reject them. It is not a case of levy of concealment penalty, where change of stand after detection may be detrimental. 9. There .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e agricultural income of the assessee at ₹ 35,34,722 without disposing of the submissions made by the assessee. 11. As per the Assessing Officer, it was found that the assessee was in receipt of agricultural income amounting to ₹ 34,30,758 during the year, which was not shown by the assessee in his return of income. The Assessing Officer held that this agricultural income had been earned by the assessee during the year and it had to be taxed as per the provisions of the Act. 12. Befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ricultural income be estimated, at the most, at 40 per cent. of the amount of ₹ 34,30,758, i.e., the total sale of agricultural produce. 13. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) remitted the aforesaid written submissions of the assessee to the Assessing Officer, for his comments. The Assessing Officer, vide remand report dated September 25, 2014, stated that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had neither produced any evidence of the expenses out of receipts of S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the remand report of the Assessing Officer. The assessee, in response, vide letter dated October 4, 2014, stated that the Assessing Officer had relied on the letter annexed at Sl. No. 152 for computing the agricultural income on 110 acres of land by applying ₹ 27,500 as income per acre, failing to appreciate the contents of the said letter, wherein, the assessee had clearly stated that he and his family were doing agriculture on 110 acres of land ; that the Assessing Officer further igno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

34,722, as assessed by the Assessing Officer and that the total sale proceeds of the crops as per the J forms could never be the income of the assessee, since agriculture expenses had to be set off against the same. 14. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, upheld the Assessing Officer's action in assessing the assessee's agricultural income at ₹ 34,30,758. For doing so, he observed that the assessee had himself admitted that he had earned agricultural income ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 35,34,722, in respect of which, J forms had been submitted ; and that thus, it was very clear that the assessee had not submitted all the J-forms during the assessment proceedings. 15. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has clearly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer since the specific written submissions filed before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), to the effect tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

authorities below, as also before this Bench, has been that the land holding of the assessee was that of 75 acres and not of 110 acres, which was the total land holding of the assessee and his family. It is seen that in the aforementioned letter APB-27 (addressed to the Assessing Officer), the assessee stated as follows : "1. With respect to your query regarding total agriculture land ploughed by the assessee, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee is doing farming on 75 acres of l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

report, wherein he had reiterated his observations/findings that the land holding of the assessee was of 110 acres, the assessee filed his counter comments, which have been reproduced by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in paragraph 6.3 of the order under appeal. The assessee has stated therein, as follows : "The Assessing Officer has relied on the letter at S. No. 152 for computing the agriculture income on 110 acres of land by applying 27,500 as income per acre. The Assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer of estimating agriculture income at ₹ 27,500 per acre the total agriculture income amounts to ₹ 20,62,500, i.e., 27,500 x 75 and not ₹ 35,34,722 assessed by the Assessing Officer. The total sale proceeds of crop as per J Forms can never be the income of the assessee since expenses have not been set-off against the same." 20. Thus, though the assessee had duly apprised the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) of the above mistake committed by the Assessing O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version