K.KARUNANIDHI,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Puducherry, dated 24.08.2016 in for the assessment year 2009-10 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s.144 of the Act.

The assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 149 days. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay had occurred since the assessee was on the bonafide belief that he had handed over the appellate order to his Chartered Accountant for filing the appeal. Later on it was brought to his knowledge that by oversight he had not handed over the requisite documents to his Chartered Accountant for filing the appeal. Therefore the Ld. AR pleaded that the inadvertent delay may be condoned. The Ld. DR strongly objected to the submission of the Ld. AR. After hearing both sides, though I do not appreciate the lethargic attitude of the assessee, in the interest of justice, I’m of the considered view that the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal requires to be condoned. Accordingly I hereby condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, which was further confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), wherein addition was made based on 8% profit estimated on admitted sales.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual earning income from retail sale of blue metal, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 admitting total income of Rs.4,50,130/- & agricultural income of Rs.50,000/-.

During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, neither the assessee nor his representative produced any books of accounts and the evidence for claiming the expenditures. Therefore, the Ld.AO estimated the income of the assessee at 8% of admitted sales and thereby added Rs.11,50,733/- to the income of the assessee. Even at the time of appellate proceedings, the assessee had not co-operated with the Ld.CIT(A) and grossly failed to produce the documents called for, in order to establish the claim of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the course of his business. In this situation, I am also of the considered view that there is no other recourse to the Revenue rather than estimating the profit. However considering the nature of business of the assessee and place of business being Cuddalore which is not a metropolitan city, I’m of the considered view that an estimate of 5% on the admitted sales would suffice to meet the end of justice. Therefore, I hereby direct the Ld.AO to reframe the assessment by estimating

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.