R.PANNERSELVAM (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1983/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 November 2018AY 2008-094 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 held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim for a 26% estimation for the current assessment year. Each year is separate and an estimate cannot be constant.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the Assessing Officer estimated suppression of sales in the assessee's permit room business at 47%. The assessee argued for an estimation of 26% based on a previous year's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the suppression of sales estimation should be based on a previous year's order without fresh evidence. Whether the assessee's non-compliance with appellate proceedings impacts the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ A’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai in ITA No.222/2015-16/A.Y.2008-09/CIT(A)-2 dated 17.04.2018 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

Shri M.Kaushik represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld.A.R that assessee is running a Lodge by name “Rohini Lodge” and also a Permit Room (Bar) at No.13, Rajabathar Street, T.Nagar, Chennai deriving income from rental and lodging business. It was a submission that during the course of survey conducted u/s.133A of the Act by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 27.02.2008, a sheet was found containing the details of daily sales of permit room furnished before the Excise Authorities and the ld. Assessing Officer had estimated the suppression of sales on the basis of that sheet, at 47%. It was a submission that the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for an earlier assessment year has directed the ld. Assessing Officer to adopt 26%. It was a prayer that the ld. Assessing Officer may be directed to estimate the suppression at 26%.

4.

In reply, the ld.D.R vehemently opposed the submissions of the assessee. It was a submission that at the outset, the assessee is admitting the suppression in which he is arguing for estimation. It was a submission that the assessee has not brought any facts to show that the estimation is to be taken at 26%. It was a submission that the estimation on suppressed sales if at all is to be done, no fact has been produced before the ld. Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority or before this Tribunal. Further, it was a submission that the assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A), even though eight opportunities had been given. The ld.D.R drew our attention to para-9 of the order of the CIT(Appeals) wherein it has been held as under:-

“9. I have gone through the facts of the case and have also considered the relevant submissions. As already discussed at the outset of this order, there has been absolute non-compliance on the part of the appellant assessee to attend to the present appellate proceedings. Neither any written submissions were furnished. The following hearing notices were issued to the assessee:- on 09/01/2017, 27/01/2017, 07/03/2017, 28/12/2017 and 16/02/2018(final opportunity). In reply to the above, the assessee furnished a letter on 24/01/2017 requesting to adjourn the hearing on 25/01/2017. However, there was no compliance on the designated date. Subsequently, one more submission was furnished by the assessee on 14/02/2017 and requested to adjourn the case on 14/02/2017. The same remained non- complied with. On 21/03/2017, one more letter dated 20/03/2017 was received from the assessee with a request to adjourn the hearing on 21/03/2017. However, no one attended the proceedings on 21/03/2017. Neither any written submissions were furnished.”

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly the assessee has been granted substantial number of opportunities before the Ld.CIT(A). Nothing has been produced by the assessee to substantiate his case for estimation at 26% either before the ld. Assessing Officer, or before the Ld.CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. Each year is separate and an estimate cannot be constant for every assessment year. This being so, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised in this appeal stand dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 19th November, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →