SUBRATA MUKHERJEE,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1055/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 October 2017AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claims of fraudulent books and audit reports, without any supporting evidence, could not be accepted. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that the assessee failed to produce any evidence for his revised contentions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a manufacturer of leather goods, initially declared export turnover and profit based on audited books. Subsequently, he denied the transactions and profit, claiming the auditor and audit report were fraudulent. He then offered a lower turnover and profit without evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's denial of his own audited books and subsequent revised offer without evidence is acceptable. Whether the lower authorities were justified in dismissing the appeal due to lack of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM]

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2011-12.

After hearing the rival contentions, I find that the assessee stated that he is a manufacturer of leather goods. He submitted audited books of account showing export turn over of Rs.9,72,54,257/- and total business turn over of Rs.22,14,92,337/-. A profit of Rs.12,08,955/- was declared and filed a return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Later the assessed filed a declaration denying the transaction as well as profit stated in the books of account. The auditor has denied having audited the books as well as his signature on the audit report. The assessee offered Rs.36,28,815/- as turn over and offered 6% of this amount for tax. This was not supported by any evidence.

Both AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of his contentions, despite repeated reminder. Under the circumstances the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A).

Mukherjee A.Y.2011-12 2

Before me the ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the factual finding given by the ld. CIT(A). The contentions of the assessee could not be supported by the ld. AR. This is a case where the assessee states that whatever books of Accounts that he maintained, the tax Audit reports he has obtained are wrong and fraudulent. Such contentions cannot be countenanced.

Under the circumstances I dismiss this appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. CIT(A).

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 31.10.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →