TAYAB YUNUS BARUDGAR,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-3, VAPI

Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 09/07/2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Valsad dated 20.02.2015 for assessment year 2010-11. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are summarized as under: i. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the entire amount of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 1,17,31,334/- as cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is based on presumptions only, contrary to the facts of the case and law and deserves to be deleted. ii. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 4,51,000/- as cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is based on presumptions only, contrary to the facts of the case and deserves to be deleted.

2 Tayab Yunus Barudgar iii. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in directing the Learned Assessing Officer to adopt Net profit at the rate 2% of the turnover for determining the taxable income in the case of the appellant as against 1.07% as disclosed by the appellant in his return of income. iv. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings.

2. This appeal was taken up for hearing on 22.06.2021, one of the Member of Bar namely Mr. Gopalakrishnan, who has to attend his another case listed on that date, submits that similar appeal by the assessee has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal. On mentioning such fact the Ld. Counsel was asked to furnish the detail. The Ld. Counsel submits that he is disclosing this fact as he was a representative of the assessee in the said appeal. On the direction of Bench the Ld. Counsel communicated the decision of Tribunal in vide order dated 31.08.2013, which relates to same assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Valsad dated 20.02.2015.

3. On hearing, the contention of Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Departmental Representative was asked to verify the facts from the Assessing Officer and the appeal was adjourned to 09.07.2021.

4. Today, we find that Ld. Counsel has already sent copy of decision of Tribunal in ITA No. 1263/Ahd/2015 dated 31.08.2018. The Ld. DR for Revenue has also filed report of Assessing Officer wherein the Assessing Officer has confirmed that similar appeal of assessee has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1263/Ahd/2015 dated 31.08.2018.

3 Tayab Yunus Barudgar Considering the report of Assessing Officer and the order of Tribunal referred above, we find that this is duplicate appeal filed by assessee hence dismissed. The assessee is given warning to desist from filing such appeal in future otherwise the same of the dismissed with exemplary cost. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order announced on 09th July 2021 in the virtual court at the time of hearing.