SHRI DOMAN SAHANI,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Shri Domani Sahani….…………………….………………………………………….…………………….…….Appellant C/o. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2nd Floor Suite – 213 Kolkata – 700 069 [PAN: ASKPS 0312 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kolkata…………....…………………………………………………Respondent Appearances by: Shri Pijush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : March 12th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : April 13th , 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)-SIliguri, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 31/08/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.1. I find that the disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to produce evidence in proof of genuineness of expenses. The ld. First Appellate Authority confirmed the addition as the profit declared by the assessee was only 3.18% of the turnover. He was of the view that the profit declared is very low. I find that he ld. First Appellate Authority at para 3 page 4 of his order observed that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account of the assessee as the entire expenditure claimed was not verifiable. This is factually incorrect as the Assessing Officer has not 2 Shri Domani Sahani Assessment Year: 2013-14 rejected the books of accounts. In his view the net profit in this line of business should have been 5%. In other words, he was of the view that the profit has been under declared by 1.82%. Even after the estimated disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had profit of Rs.4,25,479/-, which is low. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee.