What did the Tribunal hold?

For the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the appeals were dismissed as not pressed. For assessment year 2011-12, the net profit was directed to be calculated at 2% on turnover, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders which determined net profit at 2% and 2.5% on turnover for different assessment years. For two assessment years, the assessee did not press the ground of appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the net profit rate estimated by the CIT(A) on the assessee's turnover. For some years, the assessee withdrew the ground of appeal.

Imran Khan, 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.367 & 368/CTK/2016 for A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11:

The sole ground of the appeal for both the assessment year 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.367,368 & 369 /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.

ITA No.369/CTK/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12:

In this appeal, the sole grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) is

not justified in confirming the net profit as determined at 2.5% on the

turnover.

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A)

has quoted in para 2.1 of his order that the alternative submission of the

assessee to reduce the percentage of profit to reasonable extent of 2 to 2.5%

acceptable to the assessee. He submitted that in the case of Khusida Bibi for

the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, the CIT(A) has estimated the net

profit by applying the rate of 2% and while estimating the net profit in the

case of the present assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12, he has applied the net

profit at 2.5%. He further submitted that in the earlier assessment years

2009-10 & 2010-11, the CIT(A) has applied the net profit at 2% and hence,

the net profit for the present assessment year i.e. 2011-12 should be applied

at 2% on the turnover.

Ld D.R. agreed to the above submission of ld A.R. of the assessee.

3 ITA No s.367,368 & 369 /CT K/20 16 Asse ssme nt Y ear s :2 009 -10, 2010- 11 & 201 1-1 2

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

order of ld CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the

assessee from trading of fish by applying the net profit of 2% on the turnover.

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are

dismissed and appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed.

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

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Imrak Khan, 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

IMRAN KHAN,TALCHER vs. ITO, WARD-2, DHENKANAL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments