SANDEEP DUDALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 961/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 January 2022AY 2013-143 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 upheld the estimation of 5% income on turnover, stating that a previous estimation in similar cases was not a binding precedent. The addition for unexplained investment was also affirmed due to lack of explanation from the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the liquor trading business, did not maintain proper books of accounts. The Assessing Officer estimated 5% income on turnover and made an addition for unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of income in the liquor business at 5% is justified, and whether the addition for unexplained investment is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

CIT v. B.R. Constructions
202 ITR 222 · 1993 · HC
90 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Majumdar

Hearing: 03.01.2022Pronounced: 06.01.2022

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →