THE DY. CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SMT. SAROJA RAMESH DHULIPUDI,, VIJAYAWADA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 460/VIZ/2016 (Asst. Year : 2012-13)

DCIT, Circle-2(1), vs. Smt. Saroja Ramesh Vijayawada. Dhulipudi, D.No. 32-13-8, Boyapati Madhava Rao St., Mogulrajapuram, Vijayawada. PAN No. ACOPK 0638 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

C.O.No. 10/VIZ/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 460/VIZ/2016) (Asst. Year : 2012-13)

Smt. Saroja Ramesh vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Dhulipudi, D.No. 32-13-8, Vijayawada. Boyapati Madhava Rao Street, Mogulrajapuram, Vijayawada. PAN No. ACOPK 0638 G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCA. Department By : Shri Ch. Sanjeev, Sr.DR

Date of hearing : 07/09/2018. Date of pronouncement : 05/10/2018.

2 ITA No.460/VIZ/2016 C.O.No. 10/VIZ/2018 (Smt. Saroja Ramesh Dhulipudi)

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, dated 31/08/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual doing business of cutting and stitching of uniforms under the name and style of M/s. Laasya Garments, has filed her return of income, admitting total income of Rs. 16,92,660/-. Return filed by the assessee was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 143(2) & 142(1) on 23/09/2013, but no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has completed assessment under section 144 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee is in receipt of other income of Rs. 7,53,15,362/- and admitted income of Rs. 17,26,680/- claiming huge expenditure at

3 ITA No.460/VIZ/2016 C.O.No. 10/VIZ/2018 (Smt. Saroja Ramesh Dhulipudi)

Rs. 7,35,88,712/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce the details of the expenditure. The assessee could not respond to any of the notices issued. The expenditure claimed, has to be proved by the assessee by producing the books of account, bills/vouchers etc., however, the assessee has not done it. Considering the fact that for carrying any business, certain expenditure is necessarily to be incurred. Since the expenditure claimed by the assessee is on higher side and is not proved, therefore, disallowed 25% of expenses claimed, which worked out at Rs. 1,83,97,178/- and added to the income returned. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that in subsequent years, the Assessing Officer himself allowed expenditure and estimated the income at 8% of the turnover. The ld. CIT(A) by considering the explanation of the assessee and also subsequent assessment years, directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 8% of the turnover. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

4 ITA No.460/VIZ/2016 C.O.No. 10/VIZ/2018 (Smt. Saroja Ramesh Dhulipudi)

Sd/- sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 05th Oct., 2018. vr/- Copy to: 1. The Assessee – Smt. Saroja Ramesh Dhulipudi, D.No. 32-13-8, Boyapati Madhava Rao Street, Mogulrajapuram, Vijayawada. 2. The Revenue – DCIT, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. 3. The Pr.CIT, Vijayawada. 4. The CIT(A), Vijayawada. 5. The D.R., Visakhapatnam. 6. Guard file. By order

(VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.