9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was undisclosed sales prior to 1.8.2014, the assessee himself has offered the N.P rate at 2.03% on the disclosed turnover also, estimating the net profit @ 4% will meet the end of justice. Thus, the estimated net profit on undisclosed business turnover, will works out at Rs.50,56,562/- and the same stands confirmed and remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, ground nos. 2 to 5 are partly allowed. Addition for undisclosed interest - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that since we have already estimated the business income of assessee for the year under consideration, we do not find any merit in the action of the ld. AO making the said addition. The same stands deleted. Ground no. 7 is allowed. Unexplained investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ], Shillong [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2. For that the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Id. AO in arbitrarily determining Rs. 12,64,14,049/- as undisclosed business turnover of the assessee. 3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Id. AO was not justified in again adding Rs. 2,59,367/- to the undisclosed business turnover of the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned CIT(A) in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and hence, the same is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 11. For that your appellant craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing . 3. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Perusal of note sheet shows that in the past when the case was fixed for hearing none appeared also on two occasions. We, therefore, deem it proper to adjudicate the appeal on merits ex parte qua the assessee with the assistance of the ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame resulted in dismissal of appeal by the ld. CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material placed on record before us.. 9. As regard to ground nos. 1 to 6 the grievance of the assessee is against the determination of undisclosed business turnover, arbitrary application of net profit rate at 8% and not allowing proper opportunity of bearing heard. 10. As far as not allowing proper opportunity is concerned, we fail to find any merit in this submission of assessee as S/Shri Deb Roy Sudeb Roy appeared and filed written submissions/explanation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed business turnover would be excessive and higher, which will hit the assessee. We, therefore, in order to bring an end the controversy and also in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties and also considering the fact that there was undisclosed sales prior to 1.8.2014, the assessee himself has offered the N.P rate at 2.03% on the disclosed turnover also, estimating the net profit @ 4% will meet the end of justice. Thus, the estimated net profit on undisclosed business turnover, will works out at Rs.50,56,562/- and the same stands confirmed and remaining addition stands deleted. Thus, ground nos. 2 to 5 are partly allowed. 14. Apropos ground no. 7 relating to addition for undisclosed interest of Rs. 32,226/-, we are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also dismissed. 18. Last ground is general in nature, which requires no adjudication. 19. Apart from the above, it is observed that as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 an order is required to be pronounced preferably within 90 days from the date of hearing. We are conscious of this fact, but it is pertinent to observe that after the hearing one of us ( i.e. Hon ble Vice President (KZ)) remained on tour to ITAT Mumbai Benches as well as Hyderabad Benches, thereafter, on medical leave. Therefore, he was out of Kolkata for more than 1 month. Therefore, due to these reasons the order could not be pronounced within 90 days. Thus, order is pronounced today. 20. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
