9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The facts in all the appeals of the assessee are identical and common grounds have been raised in all these four appeals; we proceed to pass common order. For A.Ys 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18: 3. The facts are identical for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 except the sum of receipt on which income of 8% has been estimated. The facts for A.Y 2014-2015 are taken for adjudication for the sake of brevity. 4. The A.O on the basis of information that it has a contract receipts of Rs. 5, 13, 96, 081/-, but has not filed return of income has reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, after recording the reason. The assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act has filed return of income, declaring total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Rs. 6, 97, 84, 399/- as against Rs. 5, 13, 96, 081/- taken by A.O in the assessment order, the Ld CIT (A) should enhance the income by taking @ 8% of Rs. 6, 97, 84, 399/- as income. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by A.O as per order passed u/s 144/147. 6. Now, before us the assessee has filed appeals challenging the reopening of assessment and the quantum of addition made by A.O. and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A). The Ld. AR, after arguing the case on merit, did not press the ground of reopening. 7. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee does not maintain the books of accounts and has filed return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of 1.5% of amount credited in the bank a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 Crores. The Ld.AR has also submitted that in similar line of business, the profit margin is 3.5%. We have gone through the assessment order, CIT (A) order, and comparable cases. Considering the turnover and the nature of business, in our opinion 5% of turnover will be reasonable estimate for estimating the income of assessee . The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Kannan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 679 & 680 of 2013 in M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 and 1 & 2 of 2013 dated 01.10.2013, on similar facts has upheld the estimation at 5% of contract receipt as under : "As to the merits of the case herein is concerned, as already seen, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled return of income showing total income at Rs 15, 75, 550/ by estimating profit @1.5% of sum credited in bank account like other assessment years. However, The A O in the assessment order has made the addition of Rs 9, 57, 51, 597 u/s. 69C of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition. 12. The Ld. AR and the Ld. DR both agreed that the facts of A.Y 2016-17 are identical to the facts of A.Y 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017- 18. However, the A.O has taken a different stand of treating the receipt as payment and making entire payment as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Ld. AR has contended that the income for A.Y 2016-17 should also have been estimated in the line of income estimated in other years. We agree with the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
