Assessee appeals under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961

This appeal concerns an assessee challenging an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order. The core issue is the confirmation of an estimated income of 8% of gross receipts, which the assessee argues is too high given that much of the work was subcontracted. The assessee also contends that the profit rate should align with previous years accepted by the Department and that depreciation claims were wrongly disallowed.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Virtual Hearing)

ITA No.2014/Hyd/2018
(Assessment Year : 2013-14)

M/s. TBPR Infra Projects
Pvt. Ltd.,
# 205, Indraprastha
Apartments,
Opp. ESI Hospital, Near
AG Colony Water Tank,
Erragadda, Hyderabad.
PAN AACCT 6542K
Appellant 

Vs. 

Asst. Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Circle 2(2),
Hyderabad.
Respondent

Appellant By : Shri Mohd. Fazal.
Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R)

Date of Hearing : 25.03.2021.
Date of Pronouncement :03.05.2021.

O R D E R

Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2014-15 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’s order dt.13.12.2017 passed in the case of Appeal  No.0013/CIT(A)-2/Hyd/2016-17 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

 Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

“ 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.

2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein, income was estimated at Rs.5,17,89,991/- being 8% of the gross receipts of Rs.5,50,92,786/-.

3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated ought to have appreciated that the assessee has allotted most of the work to the subcontractors, therefore, there is no scope of earning income at 8% of gross receipts.

4. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated in the earlier years which are accepted by the Department, the profit rate never touched the rate of 8%, therefore, the same rate should have been accepted as accepted in the earlier years.

5. The learned Commissioner erred in not following the rationale of the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of M/s. Teja Constructions Vs ACIT, 129 TTJ 0057 (Hyd-Trib).

6. The learned Commissioner in not allowing the depreciation as claimed by the assessee at Rs.67,89,938/- which is allowable even when the profit is estimated as per the Board Circular No.29D dt: 31.08.1965.

To know more in details find the attachment file