RAMESH SINGH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1852/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 March 2021AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the estimation was based on peculiar facts and not a valid precedent. It reduced the estimated GP to 4.5% for the assessment year, stating it should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the estimation of 5% Gross Profit (GP) on total sales in his wine shop business by the lower authorities. The Revenue did not dispute that no comparable instances were considered for this estimation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the estimated GP on wine shop sales. The Tribunal also noted the assessee did not press a second ground regarding income from other sources.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

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

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 21-06-2018 passed in appeal No.0168 / ITO-7(2) / Hyd / CIT(A)-3 /2016-17 in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action estimating @5% GP on the total sales in wine shop business.

3.

Mr.Rama Rao vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the instant issue is no more resjudicata, as tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s and hon'ble jurisdictional high court have been directing such an estimation @3% in retail liquor sale business.

4.

We find no force in assessee’s foregoing contentions per se. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s in CIT Vs. BR Constructions (1993) [202 ITR 222] (AP) (FB) held long back that only a judicial decision discussing the relevant statutory provisions in the light of the corresponding facts from a valid precedent and not otherwise. Mr.Rao fails to rebut the clinching fact that such an estimation is based on a peculiar facts of the case than discussing at length the entire factual matrix in the light of the corresponding statutory provisions does not carry any precedent. The Revenue also fails to dispute that neither of the lower authorities have taken into consideration any comparable instance for the purpose of arriving at the impugned estimation. We deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts that a 4.5% estimation of income herein would be just and proper with the rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee partly succeeds in his former substantive grievance.

5.

Learned counsel for the assessee is very fair that the assessee no more wishes to press for his second substantive ground challenges correctness income from other sources addition of Rs.94,670/- keeping in mind the smallness of the amount. Ordered accordingly.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →