Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.
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.
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.