HANSABAI SHAILENDRA GIRASE,SHIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE , DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 669/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not reconcile the corresponding business turnover in the lower proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2017-18, challenging additions made under Section 69A and a gross profit ratio applied to cash receipts. The assessee claimed the funds were business receipts from her spouse's LPG dealership and already assessed.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 69A and the application of a gross profit ratio were justified, given the assessee's inability to reconcile business turnover.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 10.05.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 10.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1060640088(1), dated 08.02.2024, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s twin substantive grounds raised in this instant appeal challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities action inter alia making sec.69A addition of Rs.20,95,600/- and applying 8% gross profit ratio on the total turnover representing cash receipts of 2 ITA.No.669/PUN./2024 Rs.1,05,46,480/-; coming to Rs.8,43,718/-; respectively, learned counsel invited my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion qua the same reading as under :

3 ITA.No.669/PUN./2024

3.

The Revenue vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee has not been able to plead and prove all the necessary facts regarding both these additions in the lower proceedings. The assessee’s case on the other hand is that this is a joint account was operated by her spouse Smt.

Shailendra Girase, proprietor of an Indian LPG gas cylinder dealership in rural area and therefore, these are business

4 ITA.No.669/PUN./2024 receipts which already stand assessed. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that the assessee’s instant twin substantive grounds need afresh adjudication by the learned Assessing Officer to this clinching effect as this taxpayer could not reconcile the corresponding business turnover in either of the lower proceedings. It is made clear that the assessee only shall be having all risk and responsibility to get the necessary facts verified in consequential proceedings before the Assessing Officer preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →