Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (6) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that:- The assessee has not given any explanation and also not filed any details before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer has treated the impugned amount as unexplained income and the same is added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee filed a petition for admission of additional evidence, wherein he stated that he is pursuing to gather the information. He has not specifically mentioned that what is pursuing to gather the information. Find that the explanation given by the assessee is a vague and the request made by the assessee cannot be accepted. Thus, this petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence is reject .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... presentative for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal where the Tribunal has scaled down the estimation of profit from 10% to 5% in the case of Tangudu Jogisetty in ITA No.96/Vizag/2016 by order dated 2.6.2016. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in this appeal is estimation of profit in respect of IMFL business carried by the assessee. In this respect, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tangudu Jogise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ices of the products are fixed by the State Government. The assessee being a license holder of State Government cannot sell the products over and above the MRP fixed by the State Government. We find force in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that the A.O. has estimated the net profit by relying upon the decision of A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. R. Narayana Rao in ITA No.3 of 2003 which is rendered under different facts. The A.P. High Court has considered the case of an arrack dealer, whereas, the assessee is into the business of dealing in IMFL. Therefore, we are of the view that the A.O. was not justified in relying upon the judgement, which was rendered under different facts to estimate the net profit. On the other han .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... other deductions. The assessing officer should also bear in mind that in no case the income determined should be below the income returned. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also respectfully following the ratios of coordinate bench, we are of the view that the net profit estimated by the A.O. by relying upon the decision of Hon ble A.P. High Court (supra), which was rendered under different facts is quite high. On the other hand, the assessee relied upon the decision of coordinate bench and the coordinate bench under similar circumstances estimated the net profit of 5% on total purchases net of all deductions. No contrary decision is placed on record by the revenue to take any other view of the matter than .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncome Tax procedures, therefore, could not do the needful. This way the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause, being unable to produce evidences before the authorities. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee s wife is a Teacher and she gave a gift of ₹ 4,01,079/- to the assessee. He prayed that additional evidence may be admitted and the additions may be deleted. 13. On the other hand, Departmental Representative has pointed out that the assessee has not filed any details before the Assessing Officer even before the ld. CIT(A). The additional evidence filed at this stage cannot be admitted and submitted that additions confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) may be upheld. 14. I have heard both the sides, peru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates