SRI KUMARAN MARKETTING,KANGAYAM vs. WARD 1(4), TPR, TIRUPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1775/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member), Shri S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of 5% of the total credit transaction as profit, stating that the assessee failed to provide past profit history to support a lower margin claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a large sum of cash into their bank account without explanation. The Assessing Officer estimated profit at 8% of the turnover, and the CIT(A) restricted this to 5%.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of estimated profit on unexplained cash deposits is justified without considering the assessee's claimed profit margin for FMCG trading.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 16.10.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

Year: 2017-18 Sri Kumaran Marketing, Vs. The ACIT/Income Tax Officer, 10/163,, Bungalapudur Road, Ward 1(4),TPR, Kangayam 638 701, Tamil Nadu. Tirupur. [PAN: ABXFS1089B] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N. Hari Nandakumar, CA by virtual ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The only ground raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹.21,21,378/- i.e., 5% on the total credit transaction of ₹.4,24,27,560/- without comparing the earlier years GP ratio.

3.

At the outset, we note that the assessee has deposited cash of ₹.4,24,27,560/-. As there was no explanation for the same, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] by estimating the profit at 8% of gross turnover of ₹.4,24,27,560/-. Accordingly, the addition of ₹.33,94,365/- was added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the same at 5% to an extent of ₹.21,21,378/-.

4.

The ld. AR Shri N. Hari Nandakumar, CA (by virtual) submits that the assessee is engaged into wholesale trading fast moving consumer goods [FMCG] and the assessee has margin profit between 1 to 1.5%.

5.

The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT vehemently opposed the same and relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

6.

We note that admittedly, the Assessing Officer applied 8% on gross turnover treating the cash deposit as found in the bank account. There is no dispute with regard to the cash deposit are out of assessee’s business income. The ld. CIT(A) also did not dispute the same and further restricted to 5% of the gross turnover. Vehement contention of the ld. AR that there is no profit of 5% in the trading of FMCG and prayed to restrict the same at 1.5% of the total turnover. We find no past history brought on record by the ld. AR in this respect. Having no past history or the profit margin of subsequent year, we have no option but to accept to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A), which is, in our opinion, reasonable and justified. Therefore, cash deposit as found in the bank account to an extent of ₹.4,24,27,560/- are business receipts out of which the addition restricted by the ld. CIT(A) at 5% i.e., 21,21,378/- is sustained. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 23rd October, 2024 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →