DESTINY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1),, KOLKATA

order

: 13.08.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has passed a cryptic and brief order through which an addition of Rs. 19,02,147/- has been made by estimating revenue from operations at 8% of the turnover of business. This action has been done on the basis of a finding that no party-wise details (with complete address and PAN) of domestic and export sales were submitted by the 1.2 The assessee carried this matter in appeal where he could not succeed on the basis of the following findings:

“Further, multiple notices u/s.142(1) of IT Act and show cause notice issued to the appellant and in compliance to the above notices the appellant company filed necessary details before the AO time to time. Upon careful perusal of the written submissions filed by the appellant the AO observed that the appellant company has furnished insufficient details as no party wise details with complete PAN and address of entities involved in business transaction with the appellant was furnished In view of the above fact, the AO was unable to verify the genuine value of the exports and imports transactions declared by the appellant in its return of income during the year under consideration and in absence of the clinching documentary evidences in support of genuineness of the turnover/profit declared by the appellant could not be proved in the return of income filed. Onus was on the appellant to proov that value of export and imports has been correctly shown in ITR and also sales turnover and receipt are correctly offered to tax. For proving the same appellant was required to submit all the related documentary evidences to proov the genuineness of the transactions related to issues of scrutiny. However, during the course of appellate proceedings as well as assessment proceedings, the appellant utterly failed to adduce the clinching documentary evidences in support of import/exports/turnover and profit etc., for the year under consideration in spite of the fact that multiple opportunities have been provided to the appellant in this regard. In view of the foregoing facts it is held that, the AO has correctly passed the assessment order by assessing profit at the rate of 8% of the total turnover which come to Rs. 19,02,147/- and added the same in the business income of the appellant as such the assessment order passed by the AO has no infirmity and need not to be interfered with.” 1.3 Against this order of the first appellate authority, the assessee is in appeal with the following grounds:

“1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as on facts to affirm the validity of assessment order made by AO without jurisdiction by enlarging the scope of limited scrutiny case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the facts that the assessment is passed on the ground which was never put to notice or sought during the assessment proceeding, thus the order is arbitrary based on such grounds which is extraneous and unlawful.

3. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is not reasoned and speaking order as Ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as on facts to upheld the addition of Rs.19, 02,147made by estimating the income @ 8% of the turnover, without rejecting the books of accounts.

Destiny Private Limited 4. The order is devoid of facts by ignoring the books, submission, evidences produced. The appellant had demonstrated their true income and there is no finding to contradict the submission of the appellant.

2.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR pointed out that the details of parties to whom exports and domestic sales had been made were not provided with respect to addresses and PAN (wherever applicable). Accordingly, the Ld. AO was left with no option but to resort to an estimation.

Destiny Private Limited “1. Whether value of exports and imports has been correctly shown in the return of income. 2. Whether sales turnover/receipts has been correctly offered for tax.” As mentioned earlier, these reasons are broad based and generic and thus would include the kind of additions that are before us for adjudication. Accordingly, this argument of the Ld. AR cannot be accepted.

3.1 However, regarding the argument that of books of accounts have not been rejected and some details actually being filed before the Ld. AO, deserves to be accepted in principle. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, whereby he will examine the books of accounts of the assessee to his satisfaction and ask for any details that he may deem fit for arriving at a correct assessment of the income of the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee would do well to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. AO.

Order pronounced on 13.08.2025