Receipts basis and profit estimation principles in contract income assessments, with Rule 9 confined to contracts spanning the accounting period.

In a default assessment under the Income-tax Act, the authorities must make a fair estimate on relevant material, and a receipts basis may properly be adopted where contract income accrues on completion and entitlement to payment. The direction to assess contract receipts on that basis was upheld. A lower profit rate could not be justified merely by referring to rates in other cases; the rate had to rest on evidence relevant to the assessee's own facts, so the Tribunal's reduction from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. was disapproved. Rule 9 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act applied only to contracts extending beyond the accounting period and was inapplicable to contracts completed within it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a default assessment under the Income-tax Act, the appellate authority could direct assessment of contract receipts on a year-wise receipts basis for works completed during the year of account; (ii) whether the Appellate Tribunal could lawfully reduce the estimated profit rate from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. merely by reference to rates adopted in other cases; (iii) whether rule 9 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act applied to contracts completed within the chargeable accounting period.

Issue (i): Whether, in a default assessment under the Income-tax Act, the appellate authority could direct assessment of contract receipts on a year-wise receipts basis for works completed during the year of account?

Analysis: The assessment was made in default under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, read with the proviso to Section 13. Even in such cases, the Income-tax Officer must make a fair and honest estimate on the available material, and the appellate authority may interfere if the estimate is not based on a proper exercise of judgment. The reasoning stressed that income from completed contract work accrues when the right to receive payment arises, and that a receipts basis may be the more just and reliable method where the facts show payment linked to completion and due entitlement.

Conclusion: The direction to assess on a receipts basis was upheld and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Tribunal could lawfully reduce the estimated profit rate from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. merely by reference to rates adopted in other cases?

Analysis: The reduction of the flat rate was not supported by relevant evidence in the record. Prior decisions in other cases, without proof that the facts were the same, could not themselves constitute evidence justifying a lower rate in the present assessment. The Tribunal's reliance on its general experience in similar matters was treated as a mistake of law because the rate adopted must rest on material relevant to the particular assessee's case.

Conclusion: The reduction of the profit rate was held unlawful and was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether rule 9 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act applied to contracts completed within the chargeable accounting period?

Analysis: Rule 9 was directed to contracts extending beyond the accounting period, and the contracts here were completed within the relevant period. On that footing, the rule was not attracted to the facts found.

Conclusion: Rule 9 was correctly held inapplicable and the answer was in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly for the assessee and partly for the Revenue: the receipts-basis direction was sustained, the reduction of the profit rate was disapproved, and rule 9 was held not applicable.

---