2017 (4) TMI 340 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment of income - Held that - AO can adopt 8% of the sales turnover as income of the year. Even though there was a plea for allowing depreciation and interest from that amount, considering the past record of assessee and the orders of Co-ordinate Bench, we determine the Net Profit of 8% on the sales disclosed by assessee, which should justify the parties on the facts of the case. Accordingly, we modify the orders of CIT(A) and allow the grounds of assessee partly.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution and subsequent recall
- Estimation of income by the Assessing Officer (AO) at 25% of sales
- Direction by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to estimate income at 15%
- Disagreement between the parties on the percentage of income estimation
- Comparison with earlier Co-ordinate Bench decisions
- Determination of reliable income percentage based on turnover

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad involved three appeals related to the assessee for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The appeals were against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Initially, two appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution but were later recalled due to a Miscellaneous Application. Since the issues were common, all appeals were disposed of by a common order.

The crux of the case was the estimation of income by the AO at 25% of sales for the respective assessment years. The CIT(A) directed the income estimation at 15% of the turnover for all three years, while deleting other additions made by the AO. The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the Co-ordinate Bench had previously determined income at 8% in other years. However, the AO and the CIT(A) stood by their decisions.

The Tribunal analyzed the reliability of the special audit report and the determination of income. They noted discrepancies in the profit generated against sales in the real estate business and the reliance on presumptions by the special auditor. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to adopt 8% of sales turnover as the income for the assessee, citing the provisions of section 44AD for estimating income in the absence of maintained books of account. Despite the assessee's plea for a reduction in the percentage, the Tribunal upheld the 8% estimation based on past records and Co-ordinate Bench decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed all the assessee's appeals, modifying the CIT(A)'s orders and determining the net profit at 8% of the sales turnover. This judgment highlighted the importance of reliable income estimation and the applicability of statutory provisions in determining income in complex business scenarios.