What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither party's stand was entirely justifiable. Consequently, the addition was restricted to a lump sum of Rs. 3,00,000, with a clear directive that this decision would not set a precedent.

The assessee challenged the enhancement of his net profit ratio from 0.98% to 2.75% by the lower authorities, resulting in an addition of Rs. 9,01,180. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence for the lower profit rate, nor did the authorities identify specific irregularities in the books.

What were the issues?

Whether the enhancement of the net profit ratio by the lower authorities was justified, and if so, to what extent.

Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Dhanbad vs ITO | s.143(3) | ITAT Ranchi 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R (Oral) This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Dhanbad’s order dated 19.09.2018 passed in case No.CIT(A), Dhanbad/10110/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee’s solitary grievance raised in the instant lis challenges both the lower authorities’ action enhancing his net profit ratio from 0.98% to 2.75% culminating in addition of Rs.9,01,180/-. They have also adopted same comparable case(s) as well for making the impugned addition. I notice in this backdrop of facts that neither the assessee has been able to prove its impugned so-called lower profit Sh. Sunil Kr.Singh Vs. ITO Wd-1(2) DHN Page 2 rate of 0.98% by incurring the corresponding expenses and proved by the relevant cogent evidences nor there is any indication that the lower authorities have noticed any specific irregularity in the books of account forming part of records. I therefore deem it appropriate that neither party’s stand deserves to be upheld in entirety. I accordingly restrict the impugned addition of Rs.9,01,180/- to a lump sum figure of Rs.3,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation including that of interest shall follow as per law.

SRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,DHANBAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(2), DHANBAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments