Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in dated 26.03.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14, and is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of & 1660/chny/2018 :- 2 -:
Income-tax(Appeals)-7, Chennai in dated 26.03.2018for the assessment year 2014-15.
Shri K.Meenakshi sundaram represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Shri Srinivasa Rao Vara represented on behalf the of the Revenue.
As both the appeals of assessee involved identical issue, the same is disposed off by this common order.
It was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee is an individual, who is doing the business of whole sale trading in livestock. It was a submission that the returns filed by the assessee have been taken up for scrutiny and in the course of assessment , the ld. Assessing Officer had made adhoc disallowances in respect of various expenses and also disallowed depreciation in respect of vehicles, which was purchased under hire purchase basis for the assessment year 2013-14. It was submitted by ld.A.R relating to assessment year 2014-15 that the ld. Assessing Officer had estimated the net profit of the assessee at 2% of the total turnover. It was a submission that on appeal, Ld.CIT(A) had not considered the submissions of the assessee and had confirmed the actions of the ld. Assessing Officer for both the assessment years.
It was a prayer that additions as made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) for assessment year 2013-14 was & 1660/chny/2018 :- 3 -: liable to be deleted and the net profit estimated by the ld. Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 was liable to be reduced.
In reply, ld.D.R submitted that assessee has not co-operated in the assessment proceedings in so far as no evidences, nor books of accounts have been produced before the ld. Assessing Officer or also ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that even no evidences have been produced before the Tribunal. It was a submission that if the assessee was prevented by sufficient case in producing the evidences, the same is also not explained. It was a submission that the order of ld. Assessing Officer and the order of the CIT(Appeals) were liable to be confirmed.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the 6. assessment order, last paragraph at page-2 of assessment order, for assessment year 2013-14 shows that the ld. Assessing Officer has categorically held that in the absence of any details and also in view of the non-co-operation by the assessee and the assessee’s representative, the assessment has been completed on the basis of records, evidences and other details available, before the ld. Assessing Officer. In fact, the second paragraph at page-2 of the assessment order shows that a detailed questionnaire was issued on 15.10.2015 and the assessee has said that the books of accounts were washed away by floods. The ld. Assessing Officer has categorically shown that & 1660/chny/2018 :- 4 -: the flood was effected only on 01.12.2015 and 02.11.2015 clearly showing that the assessee had no intention of producing the evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. We have considered the proposition that the issue can be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re- adjudication. However, it would not serve any purpose also in so far as the assessee has categorically stated that the books of accounts have been washed away in the floods. Thus, in the absence of any evidences produced before the ld. Assessing Officer or before the Ld.CIT(A) or even before us, we are unable to find any error in the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and the ld. Assessing Officer for assessment year 2013-14 and consequently, the same stands confirmed.
A perusal of the assessment order for assessment year 2014-15 shows that in para 3.1, the AO has recorded that when the assessee was asked to produce the expenses ledger along with the books of account maintained, the assessee has stated that due to the ill health of the assessee, the books of account cannot be produced and the ld. Assessing Officer can finish the assessment u/s.144 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee’s appeal on this count. The assessee has not been able to produce the evidence before the ld. Assessing Officer nor has the assessee taken any pains to produce any evidences before the ld.CIT(A), nor before us. Further, & 1660/chny/2018 :- 5 -:
it is noticed that in the impugned assessment order relating to assessment year 2014-15 being the financial year ending 31.03.2014, in respect of assessment order relating to assessment year 2013-14 the assessee himself has stated that the books of account were lost in the floods in 2015. Obviously the assessee’s prayer that books of account can be produced, also does not hold any water. This being so, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) and the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Consequently, the same stands upheld.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.