SUBASH CHANDRA SETHY,KENDRAPARA vs. ITO, WARD- KENDRAPARA, AT- DUHURIA BAZAR, KENDRAPARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide comparable cases for the gross profit margin applied. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and decide based on facts and law.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual running a petrol pump, filed his return of income. The Assessing Officer made substantial additions to the returned income, including suppression of purchase, difference in gross profit, and creditors liability. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, leading to an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made by the AO without providing comparable justification, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAVRAJPAL YADAV & SHRI R.K.PANDAR.K.PANDA
Per R.K.Panda, Vice President Per R.K.Panda, Vice President
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated dated 7.11.2023 in in Appeal Appeal No. No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10913/2019 Cuttack/10913/2019-20 relating to the assessment year assessment year 2017-18.
Although Although a number of grounds have been raised, however these e been raised, however these all relate to the exparte order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the various exparte order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the various
P a g e 1 | 4 additions made by the Assessing Officer and thereby assessing the total income at Rs.67,62,707/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,51,504/-.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of materials available on record and after hearing ld Sr DR.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and deals in sale of petrol, diesel & lubricant and running a petrol pump under the name & style of M/s. Radraya Filling Station at Pandiri, Kendrapara. He filed his return of income on 11.12.2017 declaring total income at Rs.6,51,500/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2019 assessing the total income at Rs.67,62,707/-, inter alia, making the following additions: 1) Suppression of purchase ; Rs. 13,217/- 2) Difference of gross profit : Rs.24,50,565/- 3) Creditors liability u/s.69B : Rs.35,65,923/- 4) Unexplained cash deposit (SBN) : Rs. 81,500/-
Since the assessee did not make any submission before the ld CIT(A), NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the ld CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved with such order of ld CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the submission of ld Sr DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the ld CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee did not file any P a g e 2 | 4 submissions for which, ld CIT(A), NFAC sustained the various additions made by the Assessing officer. As per the grounds of appeal, it is the contention of the assessee that the Assessing officer has adopted gross profit @ 3.99% without giving any comparable cases. We find ld CIT(A), NFAC while deciding the issue has also not given any comparable case as to how and why such huge profit margin has to be applied. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing officer with the direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes..
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing today i.e. on 17/05/2024.
More judgments on Section 69B
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S Rajguru Foods, BijapurITA 77/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Alka Ajit Shah, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1915/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Rama Krishna Jewellers Private Limited…ITA 1289/DEL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Front Line Guards Private Limited, Navi… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(1)…ITA 7909/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Haripa Industries, Kolkata vs ITO, Central Circle 4(1), KolkataITA 2283/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026