NEHA RASTOGI,BAREILLY vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.10.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“01. Because the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant has earned extra profit to the tune of Rs. 1,49, 44,564/- on the sales amounting to Rs. 12,31,01,851/- made from 01-10-2016 to 08- 11-2016 at a premium which is unjustified and hence has treated the gross profit on the same @ 25% on such sales and added back an amount of Rs. 1,49,44,564/- to the total income of the Appellant, which order is bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the entire sales includes the sales amounting to Rs. 12,31,01,851/- (Sales from 01-10- 2016 to 08-11-2016) on which gross profit @ 12.86% has been earned and declared and hence treating part of the profit as additional and adding to the income again is contrary to the facts, bad in law and be deleted.

ITA No.481/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 3 03. Because the books of account as maintained and as produced have been rejected by the Assessing Officer without affording an opportunity to the Appellant. There has being neither any defect nor any discrepancy. The finding of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and the addition directed to be made is out of context besides being bad in law, be deleted. 04. Because the entire profit earned on the sales declared being duly accounted for, the accounts have been tax audited, there was no reason to disbelieve the same and hold that the part of the profit is excessive, itself is self contradictory in as much as whatever profit has been earned the same forms part of the profit & loss account; the addition ordered to be made is bad in law, unsustainable, be deleted. 05. Because the appellant has been a registered dealer under the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 having Registration no. 09607304641 and all the due Returns under the VAT regime has been filed with correct particulars of sales and the same has been accepted by the VAT Authority. 06. Because the Assessing officer erred by estimating the profit on sale for the period 01-10-2016 to 08-11-2016 whereas he has accepted the purchases made during the same period. 07. Because the Assessing Officer has noted from the final accounts, stock register and other documents filed by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings that the stock and purchases has been recorded properly in the books of accounts 08. Because there be no discrepancy or defects in the books of account, the entire addition proposed being based on estimate mere conjectures, surmises and suspicion, the addition directed to be made is be deleted being totally unjustified and unwarranted. 09. Because the appellate order dated 08.10.2024 is merely based on the various media reports published by several media houses which are not sustainable in the eyes of law.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is evident from the record that the last opportunity was granted to the assessee on 03rd March, 2026. However, despite filing the appeal, the assessee failed to attend the hearings fixed from time to time. Further, the present appeal is barred by a delay of 196 days. An application dated 15.07.2025 seeking condonation of delay; is placed on record, it is noticed that the said application is not signed by the assessee but by the Ld. Counsel, Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. Moreover, the application does not disclose any specific or sufficient cause explaining the delay, and no affidavit of assessee in support thereof has been filed.

ITA No.481/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 3 3. Under these facts, we are of the view that the assessee had filed the present appeal in a casual manner and has shown no interest in prosecuting the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for recalling of this order, upon demonstrating “sufficient cause” for non-appearance. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [अनादी नाथ मिश्रा] [कुल भारत] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष/VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 29/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order