JAISWAL PLASTIC TUBES LTD,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BALASORE, BALASORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 178/CTK/2022Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 April 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the business had stopped and restoring the issue to the AO was not purposeful. Considering the disclosed NP and the closure of business, the Tribunal reduced the estimated NP to 0.75%.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing PVC pipes, had closed its business. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income at 1.5% of turnover, while the assessee had disclosed a Net Profit (NP) of 0.48%.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the reasonableness of the income estimation by the AO in light of the business closure and the assessee's disclosed NP.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 13/04/2023Pronounced: 13/04/2023

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.09.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1046111724(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of PVC Pipes. It was the submission that the business of the assessee has been closed and consequently the assessee had not been able to represent before the AO or the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee had disclosed an NP of 0.48% in the relevant assessment year and the AO had after rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee estimated the income of the assessee at 1.5% of the turnover. It was the prayer that the estimation adopted by the AO is on the higher side and the same may be reduced. It was the submission 2 that the comparative NP could not be produced because the business of the assessee had been stopped.

3.

In reply, the ld. Sr.DR submitted that it is the duty of the assessee to substantiate its return. The assessee having failed to substantiate his return had produced the details before the lower authorities. The addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the business of the assessee has been stopped and no purpose would be served by restoring the issue to the file of the AO for readjudication. It is also an admitted fact that the comparative NP of the assessee cannot be considered because the business of the assessee has stopped. In these circumstances, considering the fact that the business of the assessee has stopped and considering the fact that the assessee has disclosed NP of 0.48% for the relevant assessment year, I am of the view that the NP of the assessee should be fixed at 0.75% and I do so.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/04/2023. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 13/04/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- 1. Jaiswal Plastic Tubes Ltd. 65, Grand Trunk Road, North Salkia, Howrah (W.B) प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. ACIT, Circle Balasore आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 3.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →