ANANT B PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3503/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 October 2017AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly verified the details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a transport agent, declared gross receipts and net profit. The AO noticed discrepancies in Form 26AS, indicating higher gross receipts than disclosed, and made an addition based on undisclosed receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed receipts was justified without proper verification of the assessee's submissions. Whether expenses disallowed by the revenue authorities were correctly treated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Dandawate, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Hearing: 23.08.2017Pronounced: 25.10.2017

Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.02.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

Ground No.1 2. Ground No.1 relates to the addition of Rs.7,08,650/- on account of net profit rate on undisclosed receipts.

2 Shri Anant B. Patil The short facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Gangeshwar Road Lines carrying on the business of transport agent. Assessee had shown gross transport receipts at Rs.2,19,03,010/-. On these receipts, the assessee had shown a net profit of Rs.11,49,819/- which works out to a net profit rate of 5.25%. On verification of Form No.26AS, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) noticed that the gross receipts of the assessee worked out at Rs.3,47,87,713/- whereas the assessee had disclosed gross receipts at Rs.2,19,03,010/-. After considering the reply the AO made the addition of Rs.7,08,653/- to the income being 5.5% of the undisclosed receipts.

3.

Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is not a owner of truck but he is working as agent and he arranges the trucks and for making the arrangement of trucks he earns only the commission income and hence he has prayed that it may be considered and matter may be decided.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not verified the details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we

3 Shri Anant B. Patil restore this issue to the file of the AO to decide the matter afresh as the details submitted by the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No.2 7. Ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.67,269/- on account of disallowance out of expenses. The Ld. A.R. submitted that no defect was pointed out by AO and Ld. CIT(A) and it requires to be verified at the end of the AO, hence matter may be restored.

8.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities.

9.

We find that no defect has been pointed out by AO and Ld. CIT(A) which requires to be verified at the end of the AO, hence we restore this issue to the file of AO to decide it afresh.

10.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →