2013 (1) TMI 538 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms 7% net profit rate decision in income tax case, upholding Section 145(3) of Income Tax Act. (3)

Commissioner of Income Tax II. Chandigarh Versus M/s Competent Constructions Company

The Tribunal upheld the decision to adopt a consolidated net profit rate of 7% on total contract receipts, including direct and sub-contract receipts, in ... Rate to be applied for determining the profits of the business - Whether the Tribunal was justified in adopting net profit rate of 7% on contract receipts including sub-contract receipts . Assessee not produced the purchase file and fixed assets bill – AO referred the case for special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Act - As per special auditor - Assessee had not maintained proper books - Assessing officer rejected the books of account and applied 10% net profit rate – Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] - CIT(A) applied net profit rate of 6.5% to the direct contract receipts and rate of 5% to receipts of sub contract – revenue went in Tribunal - Tribulal adopted consolidated rate of 7% to be applied on the total contract receipts . Held that :- Nothing could be shown by either side that the rate was either arbitrary or irrational in the facts and circumstances, though some amount of guess work may necessarily be there in adopting the net profit rate as there is no definite method prescribed under the statute, the court shall interfere only where the same appears to be excessive or arbitrary or discriminatory, that being not the situation in the present case. Adoption of 7% rate by the Tribunal accepted. Issues:1. Determination of net profit rate on contract receipts.2. Application of net profit rate on direct and sub-contract receipts.3. Justification of adopting a consolidated rate of 7% on total contract receipts.Issue 1: Determination of net profit rate on contract receiptsThe judgment pertains to two appeals, one by the revenue and the other by the assessee, concerning the determination of the net profit rate on contract receipts. The Assessing Officer initially applied a 10% net profit rate after rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) varied this rate, adopting 6.5% for direct contract receipts and 5% for sub-contract receipts. Subsequently, the Tribunal adopted a consolidated rate of 7% on total contract receipts to estimate the income from the contract business. The Tribunal justified this decision by emphasizing the need for a consolidated rate due to discrepancies in the maintained books of account. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, concluding that the adoption of the 7% rate was not arbitrary or irrational given the circumstances.Issue 2: Application of net profit rate on direct and sub-contract receiptsThe core issue in both appeals was the application of the net profit rate on direct and sub-contract receipts. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal had differing approaches to this matter. While the CIT(A) applied specific rates to direct and sub-contract receipts, the Tribunal opted for a consolidated rate of 7% on total contract receipts. The Tribunal justified this decision by highlighting the discrepancies in the maintained books of account and the lack of justification for the rates applied by the CIT(A) based on precedents from earlier years. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable, emphasizing the absence of arbitrariness or irrationality in adopting the 7% rate for all contract receipts.Issue 3: Justification of adopting a consolidated rate of 7% on total contract receiptsThe Tribunal's decision to adopt a consolidated rate of 7% on total contract receipts, including sub-contract receipts, was the central point of contention in the appeals. The Tribunal justified this decision based on the unsatisfactory maintenance of books of account by the assessee, leading to the rejection of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a consolidated rate in the absence of proper documentation and the rejection of accounts. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the 7% rate was not excessive, arbitrary, or discriminatory in the given circumstances. The decision was deemed reasonable, and no infirmity was found in the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.---