2014 (6) TMI 1049 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Sub-Contractor Income Estimation

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Proddatur. Versus Sri Peddireddi Venkata Ramana Reddy

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income for the sub-contractor at 3% of turnover, reducing the addition made by the Assessing ... Estimation of income - A.O. completed the assessment under section 144 - CIT-A estimated the income at 3% of the gross receipts as against 5% estimated by the A.O. - Revenue argued that CIT(A) gave relief without calling for any remand report from the AO - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has not furnished any additional evidence, re-appraising the existing fact on the basis of the submissions does not require any remand report. Ld. CIT(A) based his judgment on the basis of available facts on record and also considering the difficulties expressed by the assessee in not earning higher profit. Estimation of profit at 3% of turnover is reasonable. Therefore, grounds of the Revenue are rejected. Issues:- Appeal against Orders of CIT(A) without remand report- Estimation of income for sub-contractor- Dismissal of Revenue's appealAnalysis:1. Appeal against Orders of CIT(A) without remand report:The Revenue filed an appeal against the Orders of the CIT(A) without a remand report, contending that the CIT(A) provided relief solely based on the submissions of the assessee without calling for additional evidence. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not submit the required details during the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite notice sent to the parties, none appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing, resulting in an ex parte decision in favor of the Revenue.2. Estimation of income for sub-contractor:The assessee, an individual deriving income from sub-contract works, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) completed the assessment under section 144 by estimating the income at 5% of the total turnover, resulting in an addition to the income. The assessee, being a petty sub-contractor facing financial constraints and occasional losses, contended before the CIT(A) that the profit shown in the books of accounts was accurate. The CIT(A) acknowledged that the profit margin for a sub-contractor would typically be lower than that of a contractor, and after considering various factors, estimated the income at 3% of the gross receipts, reducing the addition made by the A.O. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the estimation of profit at 3% was reasonable given the circumstances.3. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal:The Tribunal, after reviewing the case and arguments presented, found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's grievance was not about the reduction in estimation from 5% to 3%, but rather the CIT(A)'s decision without a remand report. However, since the assessee did not provide any additional evidence, the Tribunal deemed the CIT(A)'s judgment based on available facts and the assessee's expressed difficulties in earning higher profits as reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the grounds of the Revenue and dismissed the appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 3% of turnover.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the estimation of income for the sub-contractor, emphasizing the reasonableness of the 3% profit margin and dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of new evidence provided by the assessee.