9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Invocation of provisions of section 145 and trading additions in different contracts. 2. Application of net profit rate on transportation of gypsum. 3. Dispute over the application of section 145 on contract work of PHED. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was the invocation of section 145 and the addition of trading amounts in various contracts. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised concerns regarding the transportation of gypsum, specifically noting discrepancies in freight slips and the absence of truck owner acknowledgments. The AO applied a net profit rate of 10% on contract receipts due to these discrepancies. 2. The appellant contested the AO's decision, arguing that the reasons cited for invoking section 145 were insufficient. The appellant's representative highlighted that the freight rate discrepancies were minor clerical errors and that obtaining truck owner signatures was impractical given the operational setup. The appellant emphasized that the income determination was not hindered by these issues and challenged the necessity of applying section 145. 3. The Departmental Representative supported the AO's decision, emphasizing the absence of external evidence to support the appellant's claims. The Representative particularly stressed the significance of transporter-issued challans in verifying transactions. The tribunal examined the commercial practices involving lorry receipts and the unique arrangement between the appellant and RSMDC, concluding that the appellant's operational model as a transporter for RSMDC did not necessitate truck owner signatures. The tribunal found the freight slip discrepancies to be inconsequential clerical errors, emphasizing the verifiability of total tonnage transported through RSMDC records. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the transportation contract. 4. The issue concerning the loading work of gypsum was not pursued during the hearing and was rejected accordingly. However, in the case of the contract work with PHED, the appellant did not contest the application of section 145. The AO and CIT(A) had applied a net profit rate of 10%, which the tribunal deemed excessive. After evaluating the circumstances, the tribunal determined that an 8% net profit rate would be more appropriate, thereby partially allowing the appeal. 5. In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the acceptance of the appellant's results for the transportation contract and adjusting the net profit rate for the PHED contract. The judgment highlights the importance of considering operational nuances and commercial practices in assessing income under section 145.
|
