What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding net profit as not pressed. It restored the issue of unexplained investment to the CIT(A) for adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. One ground related to the net profit determination was not pressed, while another concerning unexplained investment was not adjudicated by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, specifically concerning unexplained investment.

Khusida Bibi, Talcher vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, AR

For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Pronounced: 24/01

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of

CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, all dated 14.7.2016, for the assessment years 2009-

10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, respectively.

ITA No.364/CTK/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10:

In Ground No.1 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the

CIT(A) erred in determining the net profit at 2% on the turnover, which is

unjustified and otherwise highly excessive .

2 ITA No s.364,365 & 366 /CT K/20 16 Asse ssme nt Y ear s :2 009 -10, 2010- 11 & 201 1-1 2

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that he is not

pressing this ground of appeal and also made an endorsement to this effect

to the grounds of appeal appended to Form No.36 of the appeal memo filed

before the Tribunal. Hence, same is dismissed as not pressed.

In Ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the

CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making

addition of Rs.3,88,600/- as unexplained investment.

Ld A.R. of the assessee pointed out from the grounds of appeal

appended to Form No.35 in the appeal memo filed before the CIT(A) that

Ground No.4 raised before the CIT(A) reads as under:

“4. For that the addition of Rs.3,88,600/- as made under head “unexplained investment” is also arbitrary and unjustified.”

Ld A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground of

appeal of the assessee. Ld D.R. also agreed with the above submission of ld

A.R. of the assessee.

In view of above submission of ld A.R. of the assessee, I restore this

issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating the above ground of appeal

of the assessee after allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing

to the assessee.

3 ITA No s.364,365 & 366 /CT K/20 16 Asse ssme nt Y ear s :2 009 -10, 2010- 11 & 201 1-1 2

ITA Nos.465 & 466/CTK/2016 for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12:

The sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee in both the years is

that the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the net profit as determined at

2% on the turnover.

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that he is not

pressing this ground of appeal for both the assessment years and also made

an endorsement to this effect to the grounds of appeal appended to Form

No.36 of the appeal memo filed before the Tribunal. Hence, this ground is

dismissed as not pressed for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.

10.

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

for statistical purposes and the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-

12, are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2017 in the presence of parties.

Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 24/01 /2017 B.K.Parida, SPS

4 ITA No s.364,365 & 366 /CT K/20 16 Asse ssme nt Y ear s :2 009 -10, 2010- 11 & 201 1-1 2

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Khusida Bibi, Ghantapada, New Fish Godown, Near Railway Station, Talcher. 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-2, Amrakunja, Dhenkanal. 3. The CIT(A) Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, Cuttack

KHUSIDA BIBI,TALCHER vs. ITO, WARD-2, DHENKANAL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments