Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 21,37,998, representing the difference between VAT and income tax returns, attributed to non-vatable items. The assessee did not appear before the AO and claimed that the addition should be restricted to 7.3% of the total addition.
Held
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee was non-cooperative. In the interest of justice, given the small issue, the Tribunal held that an estimated income of 10% of the addition of Rs. 21,37,999 could be made.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO should be restricted to 7.3% or 10% of the total addition, considering the assessee's non-cooperation and the nature of the difference.
Sections Cited
44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Hotel Priya, Vs DCIT, Circle-1, Bhubaneswar Plot No:- A-301/1 Unit-III, Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar PAN No. : AABBFHH 9028 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16/12/2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10284614 for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessment in this case is an ex-parte assessment. The AO has made an addition of Rs.21,37,998/- representing the difference between the VAT return and the income tax return. It was the submission that the difference was on account of non- vatable items. It was the submission that admittedly the addition has been made because the assesee has not represented its case before the AO. It was the prayer that the assesee has been disclosing an income of 7.3% and the addition may be restricted to 7.3% of the total addition made by