Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI ‘SMC’ BENCH : PANAJI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI ‘SMC’ BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.300/PAN/2019 Assessment Year 2012-2013 M/s. Shree Venkateshwara The Income Tax Officer, Enterprises, No.8, Swami Ward – 1(1), FK Krupa Apartment’s, Bichu Commercial Complex, Galli, Shahapur, Belagavi. vs., Opp. District Hospital, Dr. PIN 590 003. Karnataka B.R. Ambedkar Road, PAN ABTFS7515E Belagavi – 590 001. State-Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Omkar Godbole For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikant Date of Hearing : 17.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A), Hubballi’s order dated 06.11.2019 passed in case in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee raise the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli [CIT-(A)] has erred in passing the order (the impugned order), dismissing the appeal made against the demand raised by the Assessing 2 ITA.No.300/Pan./2019 M/s. Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, Belagavi. Officer· under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
2. That the learned CIT-(A) has not considered the Appellant's just and valid arguments that the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Belagavi ('the learned 'AO') had, before passing the impugned order under sections 143(3) of the Act, not given the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and failed to bring on record the submissions made by the Appellant and thereby resorted to pass the non-speaking order.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order on merits and just dismissed the order citing the reason mentioned in the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A} did not consider the submissions made before the Ld. Income tax Officer regarding the complaints raised. against him at various occasions during the course of assessment proceedings.
4. The CIT-(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO erred in passing the impugned order. since the assessment has not been made on all the relevant materials furnished and submissions made during the course of assessment.
5. Your petitioner craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
I have given my thought consideration to vehement rival contentions so far as the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action
3 ITA.No.300/Pan./2019 M/s. Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, Belagavi. estimating its net profit @ 2% in mobile hand sets and TV trading etc., business is concerned.
It emerges during the course of hearing that neither parties stand in issue deserve to be accepted in entirety. This is for the reason that although the assessee stood assessed at net profit rate of 1.19% in assessment year 2011-12, learned counsel could hardly throw sufficient light on it’s book results in the impugned assessment year stating declined profits @ 0.86% only. The Revenue is found to be equally not acceptable wherein it has not considered assessee’s earlier book base results or comparable instance in the very line of business. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned net profit estimation @ 2% to that @ 1.3% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets part relief in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2022.