AMEERULLAH KHAN,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual carrying in the business of transport contract in the name of “Gujarat Maharashtra Carriers”. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that it was found from the NMS data of the ITBA-AIMS module that the assessee has received contract receipts amounting to Rs.2,36,75,330/- from various parties. The assessee has not filed his return of income, therefore the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and issued notice to the assessee. As the assessee has not complied with the notice, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 12/11/2018 by treating the assessee as a contractor and estimated the income at 8% of the gross receipts received by the assessee.

On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that he has only received commission income and therefore estimation at 8% is not correct, however, no evidence is placed before the ld.CIT(A), therefore ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

On appeal before me, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that Assessing Officer treated the assessee is in the business of transportation and estimated the income at 8% on the total receipts received by the assessee and submitted that he is only commission agent and received commission 2% to 2.5%. Even before me, no evidence is filed, therefore I set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after considering details filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary details before the ld. CIT(A) on the date is given for hearing. Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 19th day of Feb., 2020.