Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI D. MANMOHAN & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 715/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Beeran Kutti, Tirupati vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 1(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AAFF1370E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. N. Swapna
Date of hearing : 24-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2018
O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Tirupati, dated 01/02/ 2017 for AY 2010-11.
On perusal of record, we find that initially this case was posted for hearing on 04/12/2017 and at the request of both the parties the case was adjourned to 04/12/2017, the date of which was announced in the open court. On 04/12/2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was adjourned to 24/01/2018, for which notice was issued by RPAD vide acknowledgment card is on record showing that the assessee has received the notice. However, on 24/01/2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there is a request for adjournment of the case. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhttachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal,
2 ITA No. 715 /Hyd/2017 M/s K. Beerani Kutti, Tirupati
Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as held by Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise appeal No. 62 of 2009. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss this appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.
Even on merits, it is observed that the assessee is a firm and is a Diet Contractor for SVRR Hospital, Tirupati and extended services to the other Govt. Hospitals at Tirupati. It filed its return of income for AY 2010-11 on 14/10/2010, admitting an income of Rs. 1,00,000/- after claiming remuneration to its partners u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 07/03/2013 determining assessed income of Rs. 5,94,230/- by making an addition of Rs. 4,94,230/- by estimating the income @8% of sales, after deducting Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was already admitted in the return of income.
3.1 On perusal of the Trading, Profit & loss account submitted by the assessee firm during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee firm received gross receipts of Rs. 74,27,885/- by performing contract works and closing stock was shown at Rs. 3,15,640/-. Out of the total receipts, the assessee firm claimed expenditure aggregating to Rs. 69,95,725/- and opening stock was shown at Rs. 2,95,608/-. When asked to furnish bill/vouchers and other documents to substantiate the claim of expenditure, the AR of the assessee firm submitted the books of accounts and bank account statements and stated that the bills/vouchers evidencing the expenditure incurred by the assessee firm were not readily available with it. The AO, therefore, rejected the book results u/s 145 and the net profit of the assessee was estimated @ 8% of the gross receipts from business, which was accepted by the assessee.
3 ITA No. 715 /Hyd/2017 M/s K. Beerani Kutti, Tirupati
3.2 However, the AO noticed from the TDS certificates produced by the assessee firm that the assessee firm was actually in receipt of gross sales/receipts amounting to Rs. 76,12,144/- during the FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee calling for an explanation for the difference in the gross receipts admitted. In response, the Managing Partner of the assessee firm vide his letter dated 28/12/2012 submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,42,946/- pertains to the contract services offered during the previous years and the same were admitted during the respective assessment years. After verification of the explanation offered by the assessee was found to be in order by the AO and hence, the gross receipts were taken at Rs. 74,27,885/-. Accordingly, the net profit of the assessee firm was estimated at 8% of the sales i.e. on Rs. 74,27,885/-, which comes to Rs. 5,94,230/-. Since the assessee had already admitted an expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the balance amount of Rs. 4,94,230/- was brought to tax by the AO. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO.
Since, there is no Representation from the assessee and the findings of the revenue authorities are uncontroverted, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 24th January, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 24th January, 2018. kv
4 ITA No. 715 /Hyd/2017 M/s K. Beerani Kutti, Tirupati
Copy to:- 1) M/s K. Beeran Kutti, 24, Kola Street, Tirupati 2) ITO, Ward – 1(1), Hyderabad 3) CIT (A), Tirupati 4) Pr. CIT, Tirupati. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File D es c r i p t i o n D a t e I n t l s S . N o .
1 . D r af t d i c t a t e d o n S r . P . S . / P . S
2 . D r af t p l a c e d b ef o r e a u t h o r S r . P . S / P S
3 D r af t p r o p os e d & p l a c e d b ef o r e t h e s e c o n d M e m b e r J M / A M
4 D r af t d i s c u s s e d / a p p r o v e d b y s ec o n d M e m b e r J M / A M
5 A p p r o v e d D r af t c o m e s t o t h e S r . P . S . / P S S r . P . S . / P . S
6 . K e p t f o r p r o n o u n c e m e n t o n S r . P . S . / P . S .
7 . F i l e s e n t t o t h e B e n c h C l e r k S r . P . S . / P . S
8 D a t e o n w h i c h f i l e g o es t o t h e H e a d C l e r k
9 D a t e of D i s p a t c h of o r d e r