THIRUVENGATAM VINAYAGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

0 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:-

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the above Assessment Year is contrary to the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in not estimating the income of the assessee considering the nature of the assessee's business of plying goods carriages and the reasonableness of income estimation based on industry standards.

The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that although the assessee owned more than ten trucks and hence was not eligible for the presumptive scheme under Section 44AE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the said provision still provides a reasonable basis for estimating income in transport business cases, particularly in the absence of proper books of account, as upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai, in the appellant's own case for AY 2015-16 in ITA No. 75/CHNY/2019 dated 30.05.2019,

The learned CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the income of the assessee by taking guidance from the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AE, to ensure a fair, equitable, and non-arbitrary estimation.

That the income as estimated by the Assessing Officer is excessive, unjustified, and not supported by any comparable cases or consistent accounting method.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made without assigning cogent reasons and without considering the past history and business realities of the transport sector.

That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining ad hoc disallowances under the heads of driver & cleaner wages, diesel charges, loading & unloading charges, and new tyres& retreads

That the learned CIT-(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 70,43,606/-

That the order passed by the learned CIT-(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.

0 As identical issues are involved in both the issues, facts relevant for assessment year 2011-12 are taken up for adjudication and decision rendered thereon shall apply mutatis mutandis for assessment year 2012-13 also except in following figures.

0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of lorry transport. The return of income for assessment years 2011-12 was filed by the assessee on 31.10.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.6,56,750/-. It was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the act. Subsequently, the case of the sought to be reopened vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the act on 24.03.2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 17.04.2018 declaring the same total income of Rs.6,56,750/-. The assessee is a proprietor of Velmurugan Lorry service engaged in the business of running Lorries for ITA. No:2283 & 2284/Chny/2025

0 The assessee pleaded before the Ld.AO as well as before the Ld.AO that though the return of income was filed after duly getting his accounts audited from an independent C.A, the books of accounts were lost and damaged due to severe floods that occurred in Chennai. Hence, the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause by not producing the books of accounts together with the supporting vouchers even though the same were indeed available at the time of filing of return which alone enabled the independent C.A to conduct the audit of the books. Accordingly, the assessee expressed his inability to produce the books of accounts and documentary evidence to buttress the issues that were subject matter of additions and disallowances. It was also pointed out to the Ld.CIT(A) that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA. No:2283 & 2284/Chny/2025

0 We find that the identical issue was subject matter of consideration by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.75/Chny/2019 dated 30.05.2019 wherein it was held as under:- “…5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is contended before us that though the provision of presumptive taxation u/s.44AE of the Act are not strictly applicable to the assessee, guidance can be taken from the provision of Section 44AE and presumptive rate of tax can be applied placing reliance on the decision of Ahmadabad Bench (camp at Surat) of the Tribunal in the case of Gayatri Corporation vs. ITO in ITA Nos.894 & 1099/Ahd/2014, dated 05.04.2017. 6. On the other hand, the Id. Sr. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer made several disallowance resulting in assessed income two or three times higher than the returned income. taxmann.com 273 had held as under:-

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.…”

0 As stated earlier, the decision rendered for assessment year 2011- 2012 shall apply mutatis mutandis for assessment year 2012-13 also in view of identical facts except with variance in figures.

0 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.