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

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.

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.

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

These assessees’ appeals are dismissed in above terms.