What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the assessment to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication because the written submissions made by the assessee before the lower authorities were not considered. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and cooperate with the assessment.

The Assessing Officer estimated the assessee's profit at 4% of sales under Section 144 due to dissatisfaction with the books of account and lack of cooperation. The CIT(A) also ruled against the assessee, citing non-cooperation.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities properly considered the assessee's submissions before passing the order. Whether the assessment should be set aside due to non-consideration of material submissions.

Shri Anil Kumar Kedia, Paschim… vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Anil Kumar Kedia…………..….………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant 56, Chandni Chowk Gole Basan Kharagpur Dist: Paschim Medinipur – 721 301 [PAN : AFJPK 5204 J] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-39, Midnapore…..………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances by: Shri B.C. Jain, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 1st, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : August 24th , 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 28/02/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

The assessee is an individual and carries on the business of trading of poultry/cattle feed and road transport business. He filed his return of income on 13/09/2012, declaring total income fo Rs.9,90,090/-. The Assessing Officer computed the income u/s 143(3) at Rs.42,11,130/-. The Assessing Officer held that he is not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the company’s books of account and proceeded to estimate the profit of the assessee u/s 144 of the Act @ 4% of sales, which was percentage of profit declared on sales for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal without success.

Further aggrieved, the assessee is before me.

After hearing rival submissions, I find that this is a case where the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 144 of the Act, as he was not satisfied with the co-operation of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), also adjudicated the issues against the assessee, due to Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Anil Kumar Kedia non-cooperation. Before me, the assessee administered that he was prevented by sufficient cause from effectively representing his case before the lower authorities. It was also pointed out that three sets of written submission were filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 23/12/2016, 18/10/2017 & 23/01/2018. It was also submitted that a comparative chart of profit ratios were also submitted, but the ld. CIT(A) had not considered any of the written submission as required by law.

In my view, this assessment should be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, as the submissions made by the assessee in writing were not considered. The assessee is also directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the revenue and further co-operate in disposal of the assessment by furnishing all the required details.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 24th day of August, 2018.

SHRI ANIL KUMAR KEDIA,PASCHIM MEDINIPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 39, MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments