What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the profit at 0.75% of the suppressed sales for both assessment years, considering the AO's estimation for AY 2003-04 and acceptance by both parties.

The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2001-02 and 2002-03. The Assessing Officer had estimated net profit at 3% of suppressed sales, while the CIT(A) directed calculation at 1.26%.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the estimation of net profit on suppressed sales. The Tribunal sought to find a reasonable rate considering previous assessments and parties' submissions.

Superb Plastic Thermoforming Pvt… vs I.T.O., Ward-10(3) | ITAT Kolkata 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble]

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2099 /Kol/2019

I.T.A. No. 2100/Kol/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member] Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 Superb Plastic Thermoforming Pvt. Ltd...............……....………………..………………....……Appellant 103/24/1, Foreshore Road Shibpur Howrah – 711 102 [PAN: AADCS 6918 B] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Kolkata................................................….....….…......Respondent Appearances by: Shri A. Kochar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : January 6th, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : January 10th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :-

Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld.CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 28/05/2019, for the Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2002-03.

After hearing both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the net profit in question is estimated at 0.75% of the suppressed sales. The Assessing Officer had estimated the net profit @ 3% and whereas the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the rate at 1.26% of the suppressed sales. The Assessing Officer in an assessment for the Assessment Year 2003-04, had estimated the net profit at 0.09%.

Under these circumstances, I direct the Assessing Officer to calculate the profit @ .75% on the suppressed sales for both these Assessment Years. As this was accepted by both the parties, I do not adjudicate the other grounds on reopening.

Kolkata, the 10th day of January, 2020. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 10.01.2020 {SC SPS}

Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 Superb Plastic Thermoforming Pvt. Ltd. Superb Plastic Thermoforming Pvt. Ltd Copy of the order forwarded to: opy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Superb Plastic Thermoforming Pvt. Ltd Superb Plastic Thermoforming Pvt. Ltd 103/24/1, Foreshore Road Shibpur Howrah – 711 102 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Kolkata 10(3), Kolkata 3.

4. CIT(A)- 5. CIT- , Sent through e-mail.

6. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. . CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

SUPERB PLASTIC THERMOFORMING PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(3), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments