ATULT CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,C.C-1(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

आदेश / ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member : All the captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 11.07.2023 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 and 2016-17 and dated 28.07.2023 for AY 2017-18 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20 [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Since facts are identical, issues are common, hence all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. ITA Nos. 180 and 181/Kol/2023 are time barred by 81 days. Separate applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been filed. After considering the applications for condonation of delay, we

2 IT(SS)A Nos. 179 to 181/Kol/2023 Atul Chandra Das AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. First, we take up ITA No. 179/Kol/2023 for AY 2015-16. ITA No. 179/Kol/2023 4. The assessee, in this appeal, has contested the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs.50,74,079/- by estimating the net profit of the assessee @ 1.50% as against offered by the assessee @ 0.46%. 5. A search action was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 09.12.2016 and during the search action, unexplained cash deposit in various bank accounts of the assessee were found. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the said cash deposits as undisclosed sales of the assessee. In the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act, the assessee declared net profit @ 0.46% on the aforesaid undisclosed sales of Rs.48,76,62,397/- and offered to tax Rs.22,40,857/- as net profits. The AO, however, considering the data relating to net profit of the preceding four years estimated the net profit for the year under consideration @ 1.50%. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition as made by the AO. 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, inviting out attention to the impugned order of the AO, has submitted that the assessee had duly filed copy of the audited financial statement for AY 2015-16 before the AO. He has further submitted that the net profit of the assessee for AY 2013- 14 was at Rs.0.60% only, whereas the net profit of the assessee for AY 2014-15 was at Rs.1.27%. He further submitted that the AO has estimated the profit for the year under consideration on a higher side. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, in our view the estimation of profit @ 1% of the undisclosed sales would be justified in

3 IT(SS)A Nos. 179 to 181/Kol/2023 Atul Chandra Das AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18

this case. We accordingly, restrict the net profit to 1% of the undisclosed sales. This appeal of the assessee is accordingly, treated as partly allowed. ITA No. 180/Kol/2023 (AY 2016-17) 8. The facts and issue involved in the present appeal are identical to that have been discussed above in ITA No. 179/Kol/2023. We, accordingly, direct the AO that the net profit of the assessee to be taken @ 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.48,82,32,703/-. This appeal is also, accordingly, treated as partly allowed. ITA No. 181/Kol/2023 (AY 2017-18) 9. The facts and issue involved in the present appeal are identical to that have been discussed above in ITA No. 179/Kol/2023. We, accordingly, direct the AO that the net profit of the assessee to be taken @ 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.20,46,00,792/-. This appeal is also, accordingly, treated as partly allowed.

4 IT(SS)A Nos. 179 to 181/Kol/2023 Atul Chandra Das AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18