2014 (1) TMI 753 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of gross profit Books of Accounts required verification AO was of the view that the assessee having filed the tax audit report obtained by it in accordance with the provisions of Section 44AB Held that - Trading in goods cannot be compared for generation of income on account of services when it is an accepted principle that retail trade returns are to be taxed at 5% in case of books are not required to be maintained by the assessee when the contractors are to be taxed at 8% as per the provisions of Section 44AD - there was no merit in the assessment order when the Assessing Officer tried to recompute the purported income embedded in the shortage which fact remains that the assessee did not get paid for it by reducing the transport receipts, when the Assessing Officer has himself has calculated at 12% of gross receipts from transportation - the taxation as brought on record an estimation of 12% to be reduced to 8% would meet the comparison as sought to be brought on record insofar as the coal trading business has also been brought on record by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of comparison - no estimation can be made on purported short receipts on account of transport business which relates to shortages of goods delivered and not because the shortage should be benchmarked fixed for comparison Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Issues:
1. Estimation of gross profit based on maintenance of books of account and tax audit report.
2. Disallowance of depreciation on trucks obtained after 30th September.
3. Taxation of income from transport contract receipts at 12%.
4. Comparison of income from trading in coal and transportation business.
5. Justness of tax assessment and estimation methods.

Estimation of Gross Profit:
The appeal concerns the estimation of gross profit by the Assessing Officer based on the maintenance of books of account and the tax audit report filed by the assessee as per Section 44AB. The Assessing Officer estimated income from transport contract receipts at 12%, which the assessee contested as excessive and arbitrary. The assessment also involved disallowance of depreciation on trucks obtained after 30th September. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the estimation process and found that the taxation of Rs.10,56,224 was unjustly brought on record. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, ultimately reducing the estimation from 12% to 8% to align with the comparison of income from coal trading and transportation business.

Disallowance of Depreciation:
The disallowance of depreciation on trucks obtained after 30th September was a ground raised by the assessee but was not pressed during the proceedings. Consequently, this issue was dismissed as not pressed by the Tribunal.

Taxation of Transport Contract Receipts:
The Assessing Officer taxed income from transport contract receipts at 12%, which the assessee argued against as arbitrary and excessive. The Tribunal analyzed the assessment order and found that the estimation of 12% did not consider the deduction by contractees on account of shortage of goods ferried. The first appellate authority upheld the taxation at 12%, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the estimation should be reduced to 8% to align with the comparison of trading results and shortages in the transportation business.

Comparison of Trading Income:
The Tribunal examined the comparison of income from trading in coal and transportation business. It noted that the Assessing Officer miscalculated the income embedded in the shortage of goods delivered for transportation. The Tribunal emphasized that no estimation should be made on purported short receipts without proper benchmarking. It concluded that the taxation should be reduced from 12% to 8% to ensure fairness and alignment with the principles of taxation.

Justness of Tax Assessment:
The Tribunal reviewed the overall tax assessment and estimation methods applied by the Assessing Officer. It found discrepancies in the estimation process and the comparison of income from different business activities. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, reduced the estimated taxation from 12% to 8%, considering the totality of facts and the principle that income from services cannot be compared directly with income from trading activities. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and reasoning for each issue involved.

← Previous Next →