Certified copy and contractor receipts rules control limitation and profit estimation under income-tax procedure

Failure to file the certified copy of the appellate order with the memorandum rendered the appeal defective and incomplete until the defect was cured; as no condonation was sought or obtained, the appeal was treated as time-barred. In estimating a contractor's income, the profit rate may be applied to gross receipts including the value of materials supplied by the contractee where the facts justify that treatment. On the facts noted, the absence of stock records, rejection of books, and the mixed nature of the contracts supported the inclusion of the Government-supplied materials, and the approach was not found perverse.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation for want of a certified copy of the appellate order filed with the memorandum of appeal; (ii) whether, in estimating the contractor's income, the profit rate could be applied on the gross receipts including the value of materials supplied by the Government department.

Issue (i): whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation for want of a certified copy of the appellate order filed with the memorandum of appeal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Appellate Tribunal Rules required the appeal to be filed within the prescribed period and to be accompanied by the prescribed documents. The exclusion of time taken to obtain a certified copy, together with the provision enabling the Tribunal to admit a delayed appeal only on sufficient cause being shown, indicated that the filing of the certified copy with the memorandum was not a mere formality. The memorandum filed without the certified copy was defective and incomplete, and the defect was not cured until the certified copy was filed. No application for condonation of delay was made, nor was any order obtained dispensing with the requirement.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was right in holding the appeal time-barred, and the answer is in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether, in estimating the contractor's income, the profit rate could be applied on the gross receipts including the value of materials supplied by the Government department.

Analysis: The question whether the value of materials supplied by the contractee must be included in the receipts on which profit is estimated depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. There is no universal rule. Here, the assessee maintained no stock register, the books were rejected, best judgment assessment was made, and the contracts included both construction work and supply of materials. The assessee failed to establish that the supplied materials were outside the profit-making apparatus or that they had been excluded in the contractual valuation. On those facts, the Tribunal's approach could not be characterised as irrational or perverse.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not perverse in applying the profit rate to the gross receipts including the value of the Government-supplied materials, and the answer is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both substantive questions were decided against the assessee, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory and rule-based scheme links filing of the certified copy of the order with the limitation for appeal, non-filing of that copy with the memorandum renders the appeal incomplete and incompetent until the defect is cured, and in estimating contractor income the inclusion of the value of materials supplied by the contractee depends on the facts of each case.

---