ARUN KUMAR ETTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2258/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2021AY 2012-134 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 1.5% of turnover. It found that the CIT(A) had already granted significant relief by reducing the Assessing Officer's estimation from 8% to 1.5%, considering the remand report which suggested a GP between 0.6% to 2.2%.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by two assessees challenging the orders of the CIT(A) which directed the Assessing Officer to estimate their income at 1.5% of turnover in the electronic goods trading business. The Assessing Officer had initially assessed the income at 8% after rejecting the books of accounts.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of income at 1.5% of turnover by the CIT(A) was justified after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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. :

These assessee’s appeals for AYs.2014-15 in first and third and AY.2012-13 in second instance arise against CIT(A)- 7, Hyderabad’s orders; all dated 22-06-2017 passed in case Nos.493, 189 & 496/CIT(A)-7/2016-17, 2015-16; involving proceedings u/s143(3) in first and last and 143(3) r.w.s.144 of :- 2 -: 2258 & 2259 /Hyd/2017 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’] in second case; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that these twin assessees’ appeals & 2259/Hyd/2017 suffer from identical 34 days delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond their control as per condonation petitions/affidavits. No rebuttal thereto come from the departmental side. The impugned identical delay is condoned therefore.

3.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised in all the three instant cases challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action directing the Assessing Officer to estimate their income(s) @1.5% of the turnover in electronic goods’ trading business.

4.

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned estimation @1.5%, we notice that the Assessing Officer had assessed the same @8% after rejecting the corresponding books of accounts. The CIT(A) has thereafter taken into consideration the Assessing Officer’s remand report where in the ‘GP’ was estimated between 0.6% to 2.2% as per the respective stand(s) adopted at these taxpayers’ behest. It is therefore clear that the learned CIT(A) has already granted sufficient relief whilst restricting the Assessing Officer’s 8% income estimation to 1.5% only which neither suffers any illegality or irregularity; as the case may be. The same is upheld therefore in all three

:- 3 -: 2258 & 2259 /Hyd/2017 cases. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

5.

These assessees’ appeals are dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th May, 2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →