M/S. TULASI RICE MILL,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the unexplained discrepancies and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to Rs. 5 lacs, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared a gross profit of 5%, the AO determined it at 8.5% based on evidence, and the CIT(A) restricted it to 5.5% due to discrepancies over Rs. 2 crores in cash books. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the gross profit rate, and the quantum of addition to be made by the AO in light of unexplained cash book discrepancies.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B”, KOLKATA
ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by CIT(A), Burdwan u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for AY 2014-15.
We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days and the assessee filed a petition stating reasons. On perusal of the said petition and after hearing Ld.AR & DR, we find that the reasons stated are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file this appeal within time. Therefore, the delay of 49 days are condoned.
The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in restricting the rate of gross profit to 5.5 % as against 8.5% as decided by the AO as against the declared gain profit of @ 5% by the assessee.
Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee offered gross profit @ 5% but however, the AO by examining the relevant evidences such as books of accounts, ledgers determined the gross-profit @ 8.5%. The CIT(A) in its order at page No.14 found the discrepancies in the cash books closing & opening balance to an extent over Rs.2 crores but however, restricted the gross profit @ 5.5% thereby giving relief to the assessee monetary-wise to the extent of Rs.13 lakhs. These discrepancies have not been explained properly by the assessee. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and the submissions of Ld. DR & Ld.AR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restrict the addition to a round some to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. Therefore, we direct the AO to compute the gross profit as indicated above.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.01.2019.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026