2021 (2) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see filed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Truck Union, being Association of Persons (AOP) filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 6,11,207/- under the head "income from business and profession and Long-Term Capital Gains". The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act and estimated the net profit @ 2% of the gross receipts holding that the assessee had not accounted for the receipts appearing in Form 26AS. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 11,01,308/-. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... union, formed to facilitate the truck owners / members to procure contracts for transportation of goods from different agencies and the entire work is performed by the truck owners and the assessee does not own even a single truck. The amount received by the union is distributed amongst its and only a nominal amount is retained by the appellant to meet the day-to-day expenses. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account without pointing out any specific defect in the books of the appellant except for non- production of vouchers. The Ld. Counsel further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the addition of 1.5% of the Gross recei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....detailed receipts as per form 26AS are as under; - Assessment Year. 2014-15 - 0.14% Assessment. Year. 2015-16 - 0.17% Assessment. Year. 2016-17 -0.79% 4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, the Ld. counsel submitted that the percentage of profits estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) is unreasonable and not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition @ 1.5% gross profits on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of past history, the estimation of net profit @1.5% determined by the Ld. CIT(A) is reasonable, therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. We h....