9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 on 29/03/2012 admitting total income of Rs. 8,34,670/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short 'the Act'). Notice u/s 148 dated 04/12/2012 was issued to the assessee and in response to the same, the assessee filed a letter on 08/10/2013 and submitted that the return of income filed earlier may be treated as in response to the notice u/s 148. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed information called for. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, AO rejected the audited books of account of the assessee and completed the assessment by estimating the income from business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -7, Hyderabad erred by not considering the issue of validity of issue of notice u/s. 148 and the subsequent completion of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -7, Hyderabad erred in upholding the orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer by making an addition of Rs. 9,05,010/- by estimating the income @ 8% of Cost of Sales in the case of Bar & Restaurant and @ 5% of Cost of Sales in the case of wines business, which estimation is on the higher side. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -7, Hyderabad erred by confirming the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5%. As the decision in the case of Shri Late Mushkam, Adilabad (supra), and in the case of Shri Badri Srinivas and others Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 1515, 1516, 1517 & 1518/Hyd/2017, dated 08.02.2018 which is the latest order's on this issue, I prefer to follow the same and direct the A.O to estimate the income of the assessee @ 3% of cost of sales of stock for the impugned assessment year." 9.1 In the case of Sri Venkateswara Wines in ITA No. 1206/Hyd/2015, dated 27/11/2015 for AY 2011-12, the coordinate bench has held as under: "5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has not maintained any books of account and therefore, the estimation of income is justified. It is only the rate at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
