HARSHABEN J. PARMAR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering that the books of accounts were audited and the fall in Gross Profit Rate was explained by increased turnover, decided to restrict the disallowance from 10% to 5% of the expenses.
What were the facts?
The assessee debited a significant amount as other expenses but failed to produce books of accounts for verification despite opportunities. The Assessing Officer made a 10% disallowance on these expenses, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenses made by the Assessing Officer was justified when the assessee's books were audited and the fall in Gross Profit was explained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Sk 3T4h3rdiciy3feazu, 7z4rdo, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT sili uA,-f,;F41f44aFauei3it t.Hal, 4unTGF4aTA&T BEFORE SHRI CM.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.PMEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 30T.31.H. /LT.A No.870/AHD/2015 faefruratf/ Assessment Year 2010-11 Harshaben Jagdishchandra Parmar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer , 39, Ayyappa Industrial Estate, Ward-2(2), Surat: Opp.Pandesara, Petrol Pump, Pandesara, Surat: PAN: ADSPP6580H ardlareff Appellant 4ayeff/Respondent faeRaile13h; /Assessee by {TJT-aa13n [Revenue by Shri Rushi Parekh, CA Shri J.K Chandnani, Sr.DR 21.02.2018 Tdr hario/ Date of hearing:_ Jquihyurhlario /Pronouncement date 22.02.2018 HCE [Q RDER PER Q_P MEENA_ACCOUIANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Surat, dated 17.02.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Ground No.1 and 3 relates to service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, which are not pressed before Us. Hence, same are treated as dismissed as not pressed.
Ground No.2 and 4 relates to confirming the disallowances of Rs.4,23,150/- out of expenses: 4. We have heard the parties: The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has debited Rs.42,31,472/- as other expenses: However, the assessee not produced any books of accounts for verification, inspite of no.of opportunities being heard, allowed to the assessee: Therefore, the assessment was to be framed u/s.144 of the Act and accordingly, in of details, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance @ 1O% of the aforesaid absence expenses at Rs.4,23,147 / - after issue of showcause notice to the assessee: In appeal, the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer: Before Us, the Id.AR submitted that assessment proceedings for assessment year 2007-08 were simultaneously carried on the during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration and the assessee has furnished all the details thereon: As regards, disallowance for the impugned year, it was submitted that books of accounts for the year under consideration are audited and are supported by vouchers/bills. There was slight fall in Gross Profit all the expenses Rate due to the changing pattern and increase of turn over as compared preceding Year: 5 On the other hand, the Id.Sr Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities: 6 On careful consideration, we are of the considered view that books of accounts are audited and fall in Gross Profit Rate is also explained being increase in turn over as Year: Therefore, considering the totality of the facts, we compared the earlier assessment deem it fit to restrict the disallowance made 10% to 5%/ of the expenses: Accordingly, the assessee will get relief of Rs.2,11,573 /- These grounds of appeal are therefore partly allowed: 6 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed: The order pronounced in the open Court on 2 1 - 01 - 20 / 3 Sdl5 (O.P. MEENA) S4 (CM: GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER yra Surat, faol4 Dated: 22 r 0 2 -20|2 Copy of order forwarded to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT / CIT (A)/ITAT (DR) /Guard file of ITAT: By order Assistant Registrar, Surat 7a47 t c11 &xdeiiy a lrnu T7ptia, <a aate
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026