Article

Presumptive Taxation : Scope, Issues, and Judicial Trends

Article

Presumptive Taxation under the Indian Income-tax Act: Scope, Issues, and Judicial Trends

1. Introduction: The Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, has long recognised that the compliance burden imposed by conventional methods of profit determination is excessive for small taxpayers. Maintaining books of account, undergoing tax audit, and defending every item of income or expenditure before the Assessing Officer (AO) are onerous obligations for businesses with limited turnover and professional firms in their nascent stages. To strike a balance between administrative convenience and revenue collection, the legislature introduced the concept of presumptive taxation.

resumptive taxation permits the taxpayer to declare income at a specified rate of turnover or receipts without maintaining detailed books of account or proving each expenditure. The policy rationale is twofold:

(i) Ease of compliance for small businesses, traders, transporters, and professionals.

(ii) Revenue certainty for the tax administration, since a fixed percentage of turnover is offered as income irrespective of actual profit.

However, presumptive schemes also raise issues of misuse. Taxpayers may try to treat unexplained cash deposits as turnover, thereby paying tax at concessional presumptive rates instead of at higher slab rates applicable to “income from other sources” or “unexplained income” under sections 68, 69 or 69A. This has led to litigation before High Courts and Tribunals, producing important judicial guidance on the scope of presumptive taxation.

Thus, while presumptive provisions serve as a facilitator of voluntary compliance, they also test the boundaries of tax law, especially in cases involving unexplained cash deposits, bogus turnover, or dual claims of expenditure. This article examines the statutory framework, issues of interpretation, and leading case law in detail, before offering a critical analysis.

2. Statutory Framework of Presumptive Taxation:

The Indian Income-tax Act contains several presumptive provisions tailored for different sectors. Broadly, they may be grouped into general presumptive schemes for domestic small taxpayers and special presumptive provisions for specified industries, particularly involving non-residents.

2.1 Section 44AD – Presumptive Taxation for Small Businesses: Section 44AD, introduced by Finance Act, 1994 and later expanded, is the cornerstone of presumptive taxation in India. It applies to an eligible assessee (individual, HUF, partnership firm other than LLP) engaged in an eligible business (excluding commission, brokerage, agency, or plying of goods carriages).

i. Turnover Threshold: Currently up to ₹2 crore.

2. Presumptive Income Rate: 8% of turnover (6% in respect of digital receipts).

3. Books of Account: Assessee opting for 44AD is not required to maintain books under section 44AA.

4. Audit Exemption: Exempt from tax audit under section 44AB, provided income is declared as per 44AD.

5. Higher Income Option: Assessee may voluntarily declare higher profits.

6. Lower Income Declaration: Permissible only if assessee maintains books and gets them audited.

The section is designed to benefit small traders, shopkeepers, and local service providers by freeing them from compliance burdens.

2.2 Section 44ADA – Presumptive Taxation for Professionals: Introduced by Finance Act, 2016, section 44ADA extends presumptive benefits to specified professionals such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, accountants, technical consultants, and others notified under section 44AA.

i. Threshold: Gross receipts up to ₹50 lakh.

2. Presumptive Income: 50% of gross receipts deemed as income.

3. Books/Audit Exemption: No requirement of books or audit if declaring at least 50%.

This provision aims to recognise that professionals too face difficulties in maintaining meticulous accounts when operating at modest scales.

2.3 Section 44AE – Presumptive Scheme for Transporters: Section 44AE targets small transport operators engaged in the business of plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriages.

i. Eligibility: Ownership of not more than 10 goods vehicles at any time during the year.

2. Presumptive Income: Fixed per vehicle, depending on the type (light/heavy) and duration of ownership.

3. Books/Audit Exemption: Not required if declaring income under 44AE.

This sector-specific scheme acknowledges the fragmented, cash-driven nature of the transport industry.

2.4 Special Presumptive Provisions for Non-Residents: Certain sections are designed specifically for non-residents or foreign companies operating in India:

i. Section 44B: Non-residents engaged in shipping business; 7.5% of freight deemed as income.

2. Section 44BB: Non-residents providing services in connection with prospecting/extraction of mineral oils; 10% of gross receipts.

3. Section 44BBA: Non-residents engaged in aircraft operations; 5% of passenger/freight income deemed as profit.

4. Section 44BBB: Foreign companies engaged in civil construction or turnkey power projects; 10% of receipts deemed as income.

These provisions reduce disputes about actual expenses incurred abroad versus in India, providing a fixed presumptive margin to simplify taxation.

2.5 Common Features of Presumptive Provisions: Across all presumptive schemes, some common principles emerge:

i. No Requirement of Detailed Books – Sections exempt taxpayers from maintaining accounts and audit, unless they choose to declare lower income.

2. Fixed Deemed Income – Profits deemed at prescribed percentages, irrespective of actual results.

3. Higher Income Permissible – Taxpayer can voluntarily declare higher profits if desired.

4. Expenditure Disallowances Barred – Separate claims for depreciation, interest, salary, etc., not allowed unless specifically provided.

5. Interaction with Sections 68–69 – Presumptive taxation does not automatically explain away unexplained credits or deposits. This is the area where litigation has arisen.

2.6 Legislative Intent and Policy Rationale: Parliament’s intent behind presumptive schemes is clear:

i. To widen the tax net by bringing informal-sector taxpayers into compliance.

ii. To reduce administrative costs by avoiding audits for small assessees.

iii. To prevent evasion through underreporting of expenses.

However, presumptive schemes are not meant to be a blanket shield for all types of income. If unexplained credits appear in bank accounts or books, the AO is entitled to probe them under sections 68 or 69. Courts have consistently held that presumptive provisions do not override the basic anti-abuse rules of the Act.

3. Controversies and Issues in Presumptive Taxation (with Case Law Analysis):

The litigation surrounding presumptive taxation mainly revolves around two questions:

(i) Can unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts be treated as turnover or receipts for applying presumptive rates?

(ii) Once presumptive income is declared, can the Assessing Officer still make additions or disallowances under sections 68 to 69C?

Indian courts and tribunals have dealt with these questions in multiple cases, producing a nuanced jurisprudence as under-

(i) In Surinder Pal Anand v. CIT [2010] 192 Taxman 264 (P&H), the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that when income is declared under section 44AD, the assessee is relieved from maintaining books of account and is not obliged to explain individual entries in the bank account. Bank deposits are to be taken as turnover unless shown to be from non-business sources. This established a pro-assessee principle: presumptive income computation protects business receipts from further scrutiny, unless contrary evidence is produced.

(ii) In CIT v. Bhaichand Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bom), the Court clarified that a bank passbook is not the assessee’s book of account. Therefore, unexplained credits appearing only in the passbook cannot automatically attract section 68. This case is often invoked in presumptive taxation disputes to argue that mere bank entries do not establish unexplained income without further proof.

(iii) The Tribunal in Nand Lal Popli v. DCIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 246 (Chd Trib) similarly ruled that once income is computed under section 44AD, no further scrutiny of gross receipts or bank deposits is permissible, except where there is clear evidence of non-business sources.

(iv) The Jaipur ITAT in Anil Kumar v. ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 782 followed this line, holding that deposits consistent with business receipts should be treated as turnover. However, it clarified that deposits shown to be from loans or other sources could be taxed separately.

(v) Older precedents like Madiraju Rajaiahgari Kistaiah v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP) remind us that the burden of explaining cash credits lies squarely with the assessee, a principle that continues even under presumptive regimes.

(vi) Synthesising these rulings, the guiding principles are:

i. Presumptive protection applies only where deposits have a nexus with business.

ii. Courts accept bank deposits as turnover when consistent with business activity.

iii. No further disallowances (e.g., depreciation) are permissible once presumptive income is applied.

iv. Anti-abuse provisions like sections 68–69C remain applicable to unexplained deposits or assets unrelated to business.

Thus, jurisprudence strikes a middle path: presumptive schemes relieve small taxpayers but cannot serve as shelters for unexplained income.

4. Interplay with Section 68 and Related Provisions: Section 68 empowers taxation of unexplained cash credits. Following Bhaichand Gandhi, a bank passbook is not “books of account,” but unexplained deposits clearly outside turnover may still attract section 68. Sections 69 and 69A cover unexplained investments and money, applicable even if presumptive taxation is chosen. Section 69B taxes under-reported investments, while section 69C addresses unexplained expenditure.

Tribunals have clarified that presumptive taxation is not an overriding code. In Basant Singh v. ITO [2019] 105 taxmann.com 290 (Amritsar), once turnover was taxed under 44AD, no further addition under section 68 was permitted for the same receipts. But deposits clearly beyond business activity could still be taxed under sections 69 or 69A.

Thus, presumptive taxation shields business receipts but not unrelated deposits or assets. The burden of proof shifts: the assessee need not justify every bank entry if it relates to turnover but must rebut any evidence suggesting deposits arise from non-business sources. This framework balances the object of presumptive schemes with the necessity of anti-abuse provisions.

5. Policy Rationale and Critical Analysis: Presumptive taxation aims at administrative efficiency and compliance facilitation. By reducing the need for detailed books and audit, it widens the tax net and secures a minimum contribution from small taxpayers. The CBDT has consistently emphasised that the scheme is intended for simplicity and certainty, not merely for revenue.

The risk, however, lies in misuse. Taxpayers may launder unaccounted funds as turnover, paying tax at only 6–8 per cent instead of the much higher effective rates under section 115BBE. Courts have guarded against this by insisting on a nexus between deposits and business activity.

Judicial interpretation demonstrates a balanced approach: relief for genuine taxpayers, scrutiny where misuse is suspected. Parliament too has built safeguards—such as turnover thresholds and audit requirements if lower income is declared—to maintain fairness.

Comparative experience from OECD countries and developing nations shows presumptive regimes are common for micro-enterprises. But India’s large informal economy magnifies the risk of abuse. Reforms could include legislative clarification excluding unexplained credits from presumptive cover, indexation of thresholds, periodic revision of presumptive rates, and clear CBDT guidelines on treatment of bank deposits.

Thus, while presumptive taxation reduces compliance costs, it must evolve with safeguards to prevent erosion of the tax base.

6. Conclusion: Presumptive taxation is a pragmatic compromise between simplicity and revenue protection. Sections 44AD, 44ADA, 44AE and allied provisions allow small taxpayers to participate in the tax system without prohibitive compliance costs. At the same time, the judiciary has clarified that presumptive schemes are not shields for unexplained income.

In Surinder Pal Anand and Nand Lal Popli, courts accepted that deposits consistent with business could be treated as turnover, while Madiraju Rajaiahgari Kistaiah reaffirmed the burden on taxpayers to explain non-business deposits. Similarly, Smt. Poonam Rani v. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 223 (Del) clarified that presumptive income is a complete code—further disallowances are impermissible.

The balance struck is thus clear: presumptive taxation facilitates compliance but does not override anti-abuse rules. Going forward, legislative fine-tuning and CBDT guidance could consolidate this equilibrium, ensuring presumptive taxation continues as both a compliance.

Note: Another Detailed article on the subject written by me may be viewed on the following link.

Substantive- protective Assessments.pdf or

https://1drv.ms/b/c/0f527a60e6f7d291/EZXMEL4BS81EhlOlk4MJUM4BQpNBulH50f2oArQFJyp5vg?e=JbqR53