KHASIM DUDEKULA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NANDYAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 565/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 April 2021AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the 8% estimation was improbable and that the Revenue had not proven the basis for this rate. Consequently, the estimation was reduced to 6%.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the estimation of income by the CIT(A) at 8% on bank deposits of Rs. 1,06,89,000/-. The assessee argued that this estimation was unsustainable given their business of commission for agricultural produce and that deposits/withdrawals were explained.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity and reasonableness of the income estimation made by the lower authorities based on bank deposits, and whether the profit rate applied was appropriate for the assessee's business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2014-15 arises from the CIT(A)-Kurnool’s order dated 04-09-2018 passed in case No.10144/CIT(A)/KNL/2017-18 in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that this assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 134 days delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond his control as per condonation petition/affidavit dt.10-04-2019. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore.

3.

The assessee has canvassed the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

(1) The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool [CIT(A)] in estimating the income of the appellant @8% on Rs.1,06,89,000/- is wholly unsustainable both in law and in facts. (2) The Learned CIT(A) having found as a matter of fact that the appellant filed a return of income at Rs.2,13,330/- supported by agricultural income of Rs.1 lakh erred in estimating the income @8% on the bank deposits Rs.1,06,89,000/-. (3) The Ld.CIT(A) failed to note that the deposits and withdrawals in the bank were explained and therefore, erred in estimating the profit at 8% on Rs.1,06,89,000/- at Rs.8,55,120/-

4.

Learned authorised representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the impugned income estimation of assessee’s profit element @8% in issue is highly improbable in assessee’s line of business i.e., commission for transactions relating to agricultural produce and allied activities. Mr.Devdas failed to rebut the clinching fact that the assessee has not filed details of similar profit element in earlier and succeeding assessment years so as to assist the bench on the impugned sole issue.

5.

Coupled with this, the Revenue has also not proved as to under which circumstances the learned lower authorities and more particularly; the Assessing Officer has adopted 8% income element on the sum treated as turnover in assessee’s line of business. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that the impugned estimation @8% deserves to be restricted to 6% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →