HUSSAIN GOUD KOWKUNTLA,RR DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1814/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 August 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 found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% profit from the restaurant and bar, as the assessee could not distinguish the facts from a similar case. The assessee did not press the ground regarding the interest addition due to its smallness.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the estimation of income from a restaurant and bar at 10%. The Assessing Officer had initially estimated it at 15%, and the CIT(A) reduced it to 10%. The assessee also challenged the addition of Rs. 24,800 as interest received.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of income from a restaurant and bar at 10% by the lower authorities was justified. Whether the addition of interest income was appropriate when income was determined by estimation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH “A” HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI L.P. SAHU

Hearing: 05/07/2021Pronounced: 27/08/2021

For Assessee: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR For Revenue: Sri Lakka Bhushanam, DR Date of Hearing : 05/07/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27/08/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal arises against the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s order dated 27.06.2017 in case no. 0525/2016-17 for AY 2014-15, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’ ]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee has pleaded the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal.

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the estimation of income from Sri Sai Balaji Restaurant and Bar at 10%. AY 2014-15 Sri Hussain Goud Kowkuntla.

The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the profit from Sri Sai Balaji Restaurant and Bar would not be as high as 10%.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in separately adding Rs.24,800/- being the interest received, in the case of Sri Sai Balaji Restaurant and Bar, particularly when the income is determined by estimation. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.

3. Ld.counsel’s first and foremost grievance is that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in estimating 10% of the income element qua the tax payees receipts derived from retail wine business, bar and restaurant. We notice that the Assessing officer had estimated the impugned income element @ 15% where as the CIT(A) has already granted relief to the extent of 5% thereby restricting the same to the extent of 10% only by following tribunal’s order in M/s Mallikarjuna Bar & Restaurant in ITA 186/H/2012. Learned counsel fails to pin point any distinction on facts in the impugned bar and restaurant business. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s directions to this effect. The assessee fails in his first and foremost grievance therefore.

Learned counsel is fair enough in not pressing assessee’s second substantive grievance involving a sum of Rs. 24,800/- keeping in mind the smallness thereof. This ground is rejected accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in Open Court on 27th August, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: the 27th August, 2021. AY 2014-15 Sri Hussain Goud Kowkuntla.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →