2012 (11) TMI 944 - AT - Income Tax

Best Judgement Assessment u/s 144 Held that - Assessee is a habitual defaulter, not disclosing his correct turnover, year after year, he can be subject to assessment under the verification procedure. But that would not in any manner entitle the Revenue to proceed de hors the material on record or arbitrarily. There are other provisions under the Act, which is a complete code in itself, which can be applied to bring the assessee s undisclosed income which though has to be assessed reasonably, to tax. No doubt, each year is a separate and independent year. However, the Revenue having not brought on record any material to show any distinguishing feature for the current year vis- -vis a preceding year, at any stage, including before us, viz., the nature of the work done; the cost of materials; the price realized, etc., or even a non-consideration of any of the relevant materials by the tribunal while determining the facts for AY 2005-06 - no basis for adopting a different measure, both qua the net profit rate and the working capital component involved, i.e., other than the corresponding accepted rates for that year - In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Validity and reasonability of the estimate regarding profit earned by the assessee from contractual operations and undisclosed turnover.
2. Validity and reasonability of the estimate regarding investment on working capital in the undisclosed contract business.
3. Application of the principle of res judicata in the assessment process.
4. Consideration of previous tribunal orders in the current assessment.
5. Determination of net profit rate and investment based on available facts and materials.
6. Compliance with legal procedures for tax deduction at source on undisclosed turnover.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with an appeal by the Revenue against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment of an individual, a Government contractor, for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessment was conducted under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices and the absence of produced books of account.

2. The Assessing Officer estimated the business income of the assessee based on the comparison of contract receipts obtained from other sources with the disclosed figures, leading to the discovery of suppressed receipts. The AO adopted a net profit rate of 7% and estimated the total income. The first appellate authority scaled down the estimates based on previous tribunal orders in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2005-2006.

3. The judgment discusses the principles of res judicata in tax assessments, emphasizing that each year is an independent unit of assessment. It highlights the importance of the assessing authority's duty to apply their judgment based on the facts and circumstances of the relevant year, even if previous tribunal orders exist.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts of the current case and the relevance of previous tribunal orders in determining the reasonability of estimates for net profit rate and investment. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision based on the confirmed rate of 5% for net profit and the corresponding investment estimate.

5. The judgment emphasizes the necessity for the assessing authority to consider available facts and materials in making estimates in a best judgment assessment. It notes the importance of a rational basis for estimates and the need for a bona fide and reasonable approach in determining income.

6. The judgment concludes by dismissing the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the importance of assessing undisclosed income reasonably and within the legal framework. It stresses the need for equity and reasonability in assessments, even for habitual defaulters, while ensuring compliance with tax deduction procedures on undisclosed turnover.

← Previous Next →