ANADI GIRI,DIGIDA vs. ITO WARD-II, BALESORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 37/CTK/2023Status: HeardITAT Cuttack18 April 2023AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared a net profit of 2.09% and the Assessing Officer's comparative analysis showed net profit rates ranging from 1.01% to 2.50%. The Tribunal directed the income to be estimated at 2.5% of the turnover, considering the assessee's non-cooperation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a fish trader, did not file a return of income. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessment was completed by rejecting the assessee's books of account. The Assessing Officer estimated the income at 3.5% of the turnover.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the income estimation made by the Assessing Officer after rejecting the assessee's books of account due to non-filing of return and non-cooperation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK , CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anadi Anadi Giri Giri, At:1, Vs. ITO, Ward ITO, Ward-2, Balasore Gopinathpur, Gopinathpur, PO: PO: Digidia, Digidia, Dist: Balasore Dist: Balasore PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AXKPG 3023 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 18 /0 04/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18 /0 /04/2023 O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi dated 9.9.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1045341527(1) 23/1045341527(1) for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Shri P.K.Mishra, Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had admittedly not filed It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had admittedly not filed It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had admittedly not filed his return of income. The assessee is a wholesale and retail trader of fish. his return of income. The assessee is a wholesale and retail trader of fish. his return of income. The assessee is a wholesale and retail trader of fish. It was the submi submissions that subsequently notice u/s.148 of the Act came to u/s.148 of the Act came to P a g e 1 | 3 be issued on 9.2.2018. It was the submission that assessment came to be completed on 20.12.2018 after rejecting the books of account of the assessee. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had estimated the income of the assessee at 3.5% of the turnover of the assessee of Rs.2.30 crores. It was the submission that the assessee has itself declared the net profit at 2.09% for the relevant assessment year. It was the submission that in the comparative chart at page 3 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has himself found that the net profit disclosed by the comparative assessee’s in similar nature adopted by the AO himself is ranging 2.50% and 1.01%. It was the submission that the estimation is on higher side. It was the prayer that the estimation at 3.5% may be reduced to the declared income accepted at 2.09%.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the books of account of the assessee has been rejected. It was the submission that the assessee has been non-cooperative in the assessment proceedings. It was the submission that the estimation of income as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order at page 3 sows that the Assessing Officer has taken comparative case. The highest comparative case is 2.5% and the lowest comparative case is 1.01%. Admittedly, the assessee itself has shown his net profit at 2.09% in the relevant assessment year. Considering the fact that the P a g e 2 | 3 assessee has not filed the return of income and has been non-cooperative, I am of the view that the income of the assessee should be estimated at 2.5% being the maximum net profit rate as adopted by the AO in the comparative assessee’s case. This being so, the Assessing Officer is directed to assess the income of the assessee by estimating the income at 2.5% of the turnover.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/04/2023.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →