PRAVEEN KUMAR CHANDA ,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARANGAL

This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2014-15 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 23.01.2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual running a business of wine shop under the name “Jai Telangana Wines” filed his return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 electronically declaring income of Rs.8,99,580/- on 18.9.2014. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit the books of account and bills and invoices in support of the sales recorded and the vouchers for the expenditure. The assessee submitted that in the line of wines business, it is not possible to maintain sale bills. He further requested that the profit in the business should be estimated at 5% of the stock put to sale on the basis of decisions of this Tribunal. The Assessing Officer held that in the absence of sale bills, the genuineness of the sale record could not be established and therefore, he completed the assessment by estimating the income from sale of liquor at 5% of the purchases and brought it to tax. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) seeking estimation of profit at 3% of the stock put to sale during the year. However, since the assessee did not appear before the CIT (A), the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte the assessee. He also found that there was a delay of 29 months in filing of the appeal. The CIT (A) refused to condone the delay also. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided proper opportunity before dismissing the appeal. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal 4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided an opportunity and condoned the delay in filing the appeal electronically. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the appeal on merits instead of deciding the appeal in limini. 6) Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”