Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Date of Hearing : 12.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R
PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)-2, Panaji, Goa for the assessment year 2015-16 dated 14.10.2022. The only issue in this appeal is with regard to estimation of income at Rs.7,27,361/- being 8% of suppressed turnover of Rs.90,92,011/- as alleged by the AO.
None appeared for the assessee. We proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. 3. There was a delay of 76 days in filing this appeal before this 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.
Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal, Mangalore Page 2 of 3 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 this order, he immediately took steps to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, there was delay of 76 days in filing this appeal 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 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Facts of the issue in dispute are that there was a search in the case of Ahmed Sharif, a prominent arecanut dealer. Consequent to this search, a survey was carried out in the assessee’s firm i.e. Vikrant Cargo Movers, where the assessee was proprietor. During the course of survey, the revenue authorities found that there was suppressed turnover to the tune of Rs.90,92,011/-. To that extent, addition was made by AO. The assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) estimated the income of assessee at 8% suppression turnover. Against this assessee is in appeal before us.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, similar issue came for consideration in the case of Mr. Jayantilal Jadavji Raiyarela in & 159/Bang/2023 dated 8.6.2023, wherein held as under: “5. 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.”
Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal, Mangalore Page 3 of 3 6.1 In view of the above order of the Tribunal, having a consistent view, we direct the AO to estimate the income at 6% of suppressed turnover on Rs.90,92,011/-. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2023