K. BEERAN KUTTI, TIRUPATHI,TIRUPATHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1). TIRUPATHI], TIRUPATHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 715/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 January 2018AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the case. The revenue authorities' findings were also considered uncontroverted.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm failed to appear for the hearing of its appeal on multiple occasions. The Assessing Officer estimated the net profit at 8% of gross receipts due to unavailability of bills/vouchers for claimed expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated absence. Whether the estimation of income by the AO was justified given the lack of substantiating documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(b),Section 143(3),Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI D. MANMOHAN & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 40(b)

All 428 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →