Facts of the Case
The
assessee firm was engaged in electrical contract work primarily for Central
Government Departments such as MES, Railway and BSNL.
For
the relevant assessment year, the assessee declared contractual receipts of
Rs.10,66,77,556/-, out of which Rs.5,87,25,039/- related to sales of generators
from its Jaipur branch. The remaining receipts related to electrical contract
business.
During
assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer observed
that certain works had been completed before the end of the financial year but
the entire tender value had not been shown as received. He worked out short
receipts and ultimately held that Rs.56,69,837/- represented suppressed
receipts.
The
Assessing Officer also pointed out several defects in the books of account
including:
- Non-deduction of
TDS on certain payments.
- Payments
allegedly in violation of Section 40A(3).
- Differences in
bank guarantee and commission figures.
- Entries recorded
on a single date.
- Self-made
vouchers.
- Personal
expenses debited to business account.
- Incomplete
treatment of work-in-progress.
On
this basis, the Assessing Officer rejected the books under Section 145(3) and
applied net profit rate of 7% on total receipts, assessing income at
Rs.66,55,450/- as against returned income of Rs.9,03,480/-.
The
CIT(A) upheld rejection of books, confirmed addition of Rs.56,69,837/- on
account of suppressed receipts relying upon accrual principles and the decision
in CIT vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254, SC), but
reduced the net profit rate from 7% to 5%.
.Issues Involved
- Whether
rejection of books under Section 145(3) was justified.
- Whether addition
of Rs.56,69,837/- on account of alleged suppressed receipts was
sustainable.
- Whether receipts
should be recognized on accrual basis under mercantile system.
- Whether
estimation of net profit at 5% was justified for an electrical contractor.
- Whether past
history should be considered while estimating profit.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Regular books of
account were maintained and audited.
- No specific
material defects warranting rejection under Section 145(3) were found.
- All receipts
were from Government Departments through account payee cheques and subject
to TDS.
- No suppression
of receipts existed; reconciliation statement explaining Rs.56,69,837/-
was furnished.
- Certain amounts
represented sundry debtors and had not accrued due to pending measurement
and certification by Government Departments.
- Income accrues
only when measurements are taken and payable amounts are recorded by the
concerned Department.
- Electrical
contract business cannot be compared with civil construction contracts.
- Past assessments
under Section 143(3) had accepted declared profit rates.
- Even if addition
is sustained, only profit element could be added.
Respondent’s Arguments
The
Revenue submitted that:
- The assessee
followed mercantile system and was required to disclose income on accrual
basis.
- Tender amounts
were not fully reflected.
- The assessee
failed to produce evidence of reduction in scope of work.
- Multiple
inconsistencies existed in books justifying rejection under Section
145(3).
- Past history
does not give vested right once books are found unreliable.
- Reliance was
placed on judicial precedents including:
- Aggarwal
Construction Company vs ACIT (P&H)
- S.P.
Construction (P&H High Court)
- Skyline
Builders (ITAT Cochin)
Court Order / Findings
1. Alleged Suppression of Receipts –
Rs.56,69,837/-
- Of the total
amount, Rs.9,39,029/- related to alleged reduction in scope of work.
- The Assessing
Officer had not conclusively verified reduction in scope of work from
concerned Government Departments.
- TDS statements
could have clarified actual payments.
- Rs.34,64,577/-
was shown as sundry debtors in the balance sheet.
- In Government contracts,
income accrues only after measurement and quantification of payable
amount.
The
Tribunal held that without proper enquiry and verification, addition could not
be sustained.
The
matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination
of reconciliation and accrual.
2. Rejection of Books under Section 145(3)
The
Tribunal upheld rejection of books observing that multiple discrepancies
existed indicating that books were not complete and correct.
Accordingly,
rejection under Section 145(3) was justified.
3. Estimation of Net Profit
- Estimation
should be based on comparable cases or past history.
- Electrical
contractor cannot be equated with civil contractor.
- No comparable
case of electrical contractor was brought on record.
- Past history,
though not conferring vested right, cannot be completely ignored.
Considering
nature of inconsistencies and past results, the Tribunal directed that:
- Net profit be
estimated at 3.5% on contractual receipts of Rs.4,79,52,517/- (excluding
generator sales).
- For generator
sales receipts, declared profits be accepted.
Thus,
profit rate was reduced from 5% to 3.5%.
4. Interest
Charging
of interest was held consequential and allowed to the extent of relief granted.
Important Clarification
- Accrual of
income in Government contracts depends upon measurement and certification.
- Tender value
alone cannot determine taxable receipts.
- Past history may
be considered where no comparable cases are available.
- Electrical
contracting business has distinct profit margins compared to civil
construction.
- Rejection of
books does not automatically justify arbitrary high estimation.
Link to
download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770885396_MSDEORAELECTRICWORKSALLAHABADVS.JT.CITALLAHABAD2.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment