OPPORTUNE TEXFAB P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 15(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1767/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2018AY 2012-135 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 CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to appear or provide any substantiating documents before the revenue authorities or the Tribunal. Therefore, the estimation of profit by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a textile fabric dealer, filed a return declaring a low income. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144(1) after rejecting the books of account and estimating net profit at 2% of total turnover. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and profit estimation by the AO, upheld by the CIT(A), were justified when the assessee failed to cooperate or provide evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”

Before: HON’BLE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/

ITO WD - 15(3)(3) Opportune Texfab Pvt. Mumbai Ltd. बिधम/ Pin- B-2/1, Plot No. 13, Sec Vs. 19A, Bhima Shankar, CHS Ltd, Nerul, Navi Mumbai -400 706 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABCO5552B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Abi Rama Karhkiyen, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24.09.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 26.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

1.

The present Appeal filed by the assesseeis against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 24, Mumbai dated 21.12.16 for AY 2012-13.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of several calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is company engaged in the business as dealers in textile fabrics. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 27.09.12 declaring income of Rs. 23,198. Assessment u/s 144(1) was completed by the AO on 27.03.15. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Now before us, the assessee has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds.

4.

The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,80,16,755/- by estimating adhoc net profit being 2% of the total turnover.

5.

We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above ground raised by the assessee in para no. 2.4 to 2.4.2 of its detailed order and after having gone through the orders passed by revenue authorities, we find from the records that assessee had not appeared nor filed any documents in order to substantiate its claim, therefore AO made assessment u/s 144(1) of the I.T. Act after rejecting the books of account and estimated the profit @ 2% of the gross turnover. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the decision of AO as no new facts or documents were produced by the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly passed its reasoned order.

Even before us, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →