Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K.
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of CIT(A)-2 for the assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15 both are having common date 14.10.2022.
The issue in both the appeals are common in nature with regard to estimation of income at 8% on suppressed turnover of Rs.1,17,76,495/- for the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.1,03,24,086/- for the assessment year 2014-15 respectively. There was delay of 76 days in filing these appeals before this & 159/Bang/2023 Mr. Jayantilal Jadavji Raiyarela, Mangalore
Page 2 of 4 Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the delay that he is not well-versed with the technicalities of online procedure of Income Tax Rules and hence, he did not see the ld. CIT(A) order till he was informed by his colleague about passing of order by ld. CIT(A). As soon as he came to know about passing of these orders, he immediately took steps to file the appeals before this Tribunal. Hence, there was delay of 76 days in filing these appeals before this Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to condonation of delay, in our opinion, there is a good and sufficient reason in not filing the appeals before this Tribunal in time. Accordingly, this short delay of 76 das is condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
Facts of the issue in dispute are that the assessee is a proprietor of Vikrant Logistics, Mangalore engaged in the business of goods transport agent. There was search in the case of Shri Ama Sharif & Others u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] on 24.11.2015. The assessee being connected to this group, the assessee’s case is covered by survey u/s 133A of the Act. The survey was conducted in the premises of Royal Transport Company, Bunder, Mangalore. It was found that the assessee is a transport operator not disclosing fully the income from freight charges were received without raising a GCN and consequently collected in cash and are not recorded in the books was totally unaccounted with the fact that there is a substantial suppression of freight income. When this fact was confronted to Mr. Prakash Kumar Easwarlal, who was GPA holder, he said in his statement recorded on 24.11.2015 that the admission of income of Rs.1,11,76,495/- towards unaccounted & 159/Bang/2023 Mr. Jayantilal Jadavji Raiyarela, Mangalore Page 3 of 4 freight charges collected for the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.1,03,23,737/- for the assessment year 2014-15. On this reason, the assessments were was reopened for Assessmentn years and notice u/s 147 of the Act was issued on 4.10.2017. The AO while framing assessment made the addition of Rs.1,11,76,495/- for the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.1,03,24,086/- for the assessment year 2014-5. Against this assessee carried the appeal before ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition at 8% on this undisclosed turnover at Rs.8,94,120/- and Rs.8,25,927/- for the assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Against this assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. A.R. pleaded that income of the assessee may be estimated at 5% of suppressed turnover instead 8% worked out by ld. CIT(A) which is very high, since the assessee is not owning any transport vehicle and working only as an agent for commission. In our opinion, it is reasonable to estimate the income of the assessee at 6% of Rs.1,11,76,495/- and Rs.1,03,24,086/- for both Assessment years instead of 8% estimated by the ld. CIT(A) in these Assessment years. The assessee will get partial relief and the ground of appeal in these assessment years is partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th June, 2023