Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Sandeep Dudala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. PAN No. ALQPD4836L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Rohit Majumdar Date of hearing: 03.01.2022 Date of pronouncement: 06.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Hyderabad’s order dated 15.03.2019 in 17, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Assessee called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded exparte.
We notice with the able assistance of learned departmental representative that the assessee’s twin substantive grounds raised herein seek to reverse both the lower authorities’ action estimating 5% income in retail liquor business and unexplained investment addition involving varying sums of Rs.19,15,935/- and 37,35,000/-, respectively.
There is hardly any dispute about the assessee having carried out liquor trading business in the impugned assessment year. And also that he had not maintained any books as well so as to support the profit declared of Rs.6,57,380/- on the total turnover of Rs.3,83,18,702/- coming to Rs.19,15,935/-. The assessee’s stand throughout has been that this tribunal in and 1206/Hyd/2015 had estimated 3% income in the very business which had also been upheld in the hon’ble jurisdictional high court as well. We hold that such an estimation could not be taken as a binding precedent in light of CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222(AP). We accordingly uphold both the lower authorities’ action estimating the assessee’s income @ 5% of the turnover.
Next comes the latter issue of unexplained investment amounting to Rs.37,35,000/-. Case file suggests that the assessee neither explained source thereof during the course of scrutiny nor in the CIT(A)’s order. The Assessing Officer had rather accepted his evidence filed regarding the remaining gold loan amount of Rs.8.15 lakhs. We accordingly do not find no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities’ action to this affect. The same stands affirmed.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.