RAMULU MANTHI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 596/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 November 2021AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' action of estimating net profit at 5% on liquor sales, finding no merit in the assessee's claim of a 3% margin. The disallowance of Section 80C deduction was also upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide relevant details.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order estimating net profit on liquor sales at 5% and disallowing a deduction under Section 80C. There was a significant delay in filing the appeals, which the Tribunal condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of net profit on liquor sales at 5% by the lower authorities was justified, and if the disallowance of Section 80C deduction was correct due to lack of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeals for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 arise from the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s order dated 09.07.2018 passed in appeal No.040 & 0402 / 2016-17 / CIT(A)-7 in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].

Case called twice. None appeared on behalf of assessee. Heard Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Ld.D.R. Case files perused. & 596/Hyd/2019 AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ramulu Manthri, Hyd.

At the outset it is seen that there is a delay of 220 days each in filing these appeals for which the assessee had filed condonation petition explaining reasons for the delay and prayed that the delay be condoned. Case Law: Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, (1987) AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi vs. Union of India, Civil appeal no. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17.12.2019, hold that such a delay supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay of 220 days each is condoned as it is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control.

2.

The assessee’s identical former substantive grievance in first and sole substantive grievance in latter appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action estimating net profit on account of sale of liquor @ 5% involving addition amounts of Rs. 14,94,705/- and Rs 30,08,835/-; respectively.

2.1. The assessee has pleaded in his grounds in both these appeals that the impugned profit element does not exceed 3%, as per various judicial precedents. We find no merit in assessee’s stand as such an estimation is not a binding precedent in light of CIT vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) since not considering all the relevant facts in light of the state excise law policy specifying retail margins. The assessee has not further highlighted the profit margin as per the excise policy in retail liquor sales as well. We therefore affirm both the learned lower authorities’ action. & 596/Hyd/2019 AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ramulu Manthri, Hyd.

2.2. Same is the case with sec.80C deduction disallowance in assessee’s latter grievance involving sum of Rs. 35,000/- since he failed to produce all the relevant details.

3.

This assessee’s appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced on 16th November, 2021.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →