ABDULLAZIZ JAAN MOHAMMAD ANSARI,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 30.01.2024 for the assessment year 2011-12.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in livestock under the name and style of “M/s. Aziz Trading”. The Return of Income for 2 the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 22.07.2011 offering the income to tax on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD by estimating income at 8% disclosing a total turnover of Rs.24,35,680/-. Subsequently, an information received from the AIR, wherein, the Venky’s Group made sales of Rs.5,13,05,561/-to the appellant during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y. 2011, therefore, AO formed an opinion that the income of escaped assessment of tax, accordingly, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.03.2018. In response to the said notice, the appellant filed return of income on 30.04.2018 by declaring business turnover of Rs.5,29,64,715/- offered an amount of Rs.5,54,179/- only. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by assessing total income at 8% of turnover on undisclosed cash purchases.

Being aggrieved by the above, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, contending that the percentage of profit adopted by the AO is unreasonable excessive and not based on any evidence. During the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee had cited following comparables i.e. Aziz Trading Dhule, M S Traders, Naeem Ahmed Abdul Shakoor Quraishi, Indian Boiler Trading

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

The ld. AR also filed additional ground of appeal which reads as under : “The order passed u/s. 148 be declared as null and void as the notice u/s. 148 was served o the assessee after time limit prescribed in the IT Act. The above is purely legal Ground & First time Raised before Hon. Income Tax Appellate Authority. The necessary facts for adjudication of this ground are already in the Assessment Order itself and therefore, does not require any further factual support.”

The ld. AR further submits that the CIT(A) without adverting to comparables relied upon by the assessee has disposed of the appeal.

On the other hand ld. DR supports the order of CIT(A).

We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. First we shall take up the additional ground of appeal which goes to the very root of the matter. The appellant had assailed the assessment order vide this additional ground of appeal on the ground that the assessment order is bad in law as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served upon the appellant beyond the period prescribed under the statute. We do not find any merit in the additional ground of appeal as the provisions of section 148 of the Act, only requires to issue notice u/s. 148 within the prescribed period of limitation and even the service of notice u/s. 148 can be made beyond the period of limitation, the assessment order is not vitiated. Thus, the additional ground of appeal stands dismissed.