2016 (2) TMI 602 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal decision on expenses, income, interest, and charges under sections 234A and 234B.

DNR Constructions Versus Income-Tax Officer

The appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, addressing issues related to disallowed expenses for diesel and lubricants, income estimation at ... Estimation of profit - Held that:- As relying on case of ACIT V/s. M/s Teja Constructions [2014 (1) TMI 832 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we direct Assessing Officer to estimate the profit from main contract work at 8% and on sub-contract work at 5% of the receipts. Deduction towards interest and remuneration payment to partners - Held that:- It is seen that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in the case of M/s C. Eswara Reddy V/s. CIT (2011 (1) TMI 1238 - ITAT HYDERABAD ) after considering the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction V/s. CIT (1998 (3) TMI 121 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court ) as well as the provision contained u/s 44AD of the Act, directed for allowing deduction towards interest and remuneration payment to partners after estimation of income by rejecting books of accounts in case of a firm engaged in executing contract work. Even thereafter in a series of decisions, this Bench of the Tribunal has consistently held a view that deduction towards interest and remuneration payment to partners is to be allowed from profit estimated after rejecting books of account in case of a firm engaged in the business of works contract. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct the AO to allow deduction towards payment of interest and remuneration to the partners after estimating the profit Issues involved:1. Disallowance of expenses towards diesel and lubricants.2. Estimation of income by CIT(A) at specific rates.3. Deduction towards interest and remuneration payment to partners.4. Charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B.Detailed analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 56,94,518 towards diesel and lubricants by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO disallowed this amount as the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting the claimed expenditure, which constituted a significant portion of the gross contract receipts. Despite repeated requests, the necessary information was not submitted by the concerned parties. Consequently, the AO disallowed the claimed amount.2. The second issue pertains to the estimation of income by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) at specific rates. The CIT(A) directed the AO to estimate the profit at 12.5% on contract receipts from South Central Railway and at 4% on sub-contract works from Sri Sai Sreenivasa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) emphasized the lack of evidence for the expenses debited to the profit and loss account, leading to the estimation of income at specified rates. Additionally, the CIT(A) disallowed a penalty of Rs. 15,000.3. The third issue involves the deduction towards interest and remuneration payment to partners. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, directed the AO to allow deductions for interest and remuneration payment to partners after estimating the profit. This decision was based on previous rulings and the rejection of books of accounts in cases of firms engaged in contract work. The tribunal consistently held that such deductions should be allowed after profit estimation.4. The final issue concerns the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B. The tribunal directed that the interest charges should be revised based on the liability computed as per their order, indicating a partial allowance of this ground of appeal. The decision on interest charges was deemed consequential and required revision based on the revised computation of liability.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee, addressing the various issues related to disallowed expenses, income estimation, deductions for interest and remuneration, and the revision of interest charges under sections 234A and 234B. The judgment provided detailed reasoning and cited relevant precedents to support the decisions on each issue.