9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 747 - HC - Income TaxAddition on estimate basis by applying the net profit rate of 1% on total transport/service charges etc Held that - Estimation is a question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Ors., 2011 (1) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Decided against the Revenue.
Issues:
Appeals filed by the department under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the consolidated order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. Analysis: The High Court dealt with appeals filed by the department against the consolidated order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were filed for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The assessee, a co-operative society engaged in various activities, had shown "nil" income, but the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on positive income figures. The first appellate authority granted relief to the assessee, leading to the department filing a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT (A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on all issues except one related to the addition pertaining to the Net Profit rate. The only ground taken by the appellant-Department in the present appeal was regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on an estimate basis by applying a net profit rate on total transport/service charges. The Tribunal had deleted this addition, prompting the department to file the current appeal. The High Court noted that the department had filed the appeals against the additions that were deleted/restricted by the Tribunal concerning the Net Profit Rate, which were made on an estimate basis. The High Court emphasized that estimation is a question of fact, citing the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Ors. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law emerged from the impugned order. Therefore, both appeals were dismissed at the admission stage.
|
