2014 (8) TMI 351 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of income - Applicability of section 44AD on gross turnover Books of accounts not produced by assessee Held that - The Tribunal was rightly of the view that estimate made by the AO has to be on some basis and determination of gross profit rate cannot be on mere ipsi dixit - Tribunal felt that the gross profit rate as mentioned in the statute in Section 44AD should be applied assessee had declared income of ₹ 7,34,920/- and the assessed income @ 8% gross profit on gross receipt of ₹ 2,86,70,726/- would be about ₹ 22,93,658 - Section 44AD prescribes a thumb rule and is applicable to small assesses, but while prescribing the thumb rule the Legislature, it is apparent, must have taken into account material and evidence to come to the figure of 8%. thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification for the computation of gross profit in the assessment order.
3. Adequacy of basis for determining gross profit rate in best judgment assessment.
4. Application of gross profit rate under Section 44AD by appellate authorities.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the applicability of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes rules for small assesses. The appellant argued that Section 44AD was not applicable as the gross turnover of the assessee exceeded the threshold of Rs. 40 lakhs. The respondent was faulted for not producing books of accounts, leading to a best judgment assessment order under Section 144 of the Act.

2. While it was acknowledged that Section 44AD was not applicable, the Assessing Officer's computation of gross profit at 25% and allowing expenses at 75% without justification was questioned. The assessment order lacked a proper basis for these calculations, as it merely assumed percentages without any supporting evidence or reasoning.

3. The court emphasized that even in best judgment assessments, estimates must be made based on some foundation and not arbitrary decisions. The Assessing Officer's failure to undertake a proper exercise to determine the gross profit rate was highlighted. It was suggested that referencing other assesses or adopting standard practices could have provided a more reasonable basis for the calculations.

4. The appellate authorities, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, intervened due to the lack of inquiry and basis in the original assessment. They opted to apply the gross profit rate as per Section 44AD as a middle ground solution. This decision was supported by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and upheld by the tribunal. The court concluded that without substantial evidence or inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the application of Section 44AD's thumb rule was deemed appropriate in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.