9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though Appellant would object, stating that the said document is a separate document, titled Intimation letter for order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act , we find it as without merit and, rather, appears to have been made without reading the said document, whereby the assessee is informed of being conveyed the order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2021, issued earlier, electronically, i.e., after completion of accounting by CPC. There is no dispute that both the assesssment order and the Intimation were uploaded on 30/11/2021. That apart, notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act dated 30.11.2021, manually signed, as is the assessment order, forms part of the appeal file itself. This is in complete conformity with the Board Circular supra. What, then, is the assessee s grievance? Rather, the Intimation and the order being displayed on the Revenue s portal, the objection is not only invalid but also unfortunate.The assessee s appeal for AY 2015-16 is accordingly dismissed. Assessment order has not been signed, either physically or digitally, by the AO - AY: 2016-17 - HELD THAT:- Sec. 282A(2) provides that if the name and office of the designated income tax authority is printed, stamped or oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8%, is corroborating material, so that the lower of the two rates, i.e., 5%, as admitted, could have been applied for all the years. Be that as it may, it is not so constrained for the current year, for which the assessment is u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee returning income at Rs. 98,70,252, the AO has accepted the same. The same is consistent with the estimated turnover of Rs. 20 crores, yielding a profit rate of less than 5%. Appellant was in this regard specifically questioned by the Bench about the turnover per the software for f.y. 2018-19, i.e., the previous year relevant to AY 2019-20, and to which he replied as being not available. There is, in this view of the matter, no scope, factually and, therefore, legally; the ld. CIT(A) emphasizing the latter, for any reduction therein. That is, the assessee stands rightly assessed. As we have dwelled on the facts of the case as we are, in confirming the assessed income, not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A). There is no law that the assessed income, a product of the law as applied to the facts of a case, cannot be lower than the returned income. Rather, it is only where an assessment fails, that the assessee may not be able to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough stands perused, is as under: Q. 23 As per the Income Tax Return filed for the AYs. 18-19 and preceding five years you have declared sales turnover below One Crore and filed such return of income by applying section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However as stated herein above by you, you have not declared in the various income tax returns 15% of actual daily sales turnover and as stated above for the period 1.10.19 to 15.10.19 you have prepared tax invoices for 5% of sales turnover only. Moreover, for example, during the month of September, 19 your sales turnover as per the daily sales Reports is Rs. 1,76,15,969/-. Even for 15 days from 1.10.19 to 15.10.19, your sales as per Daily Sales report is Rs. 1,05,37,600/-. Your explanation in this regard? Ans: We admit that we have suppressed sales by showing meagre portion of sales turnover as stated above while filing Return of Income. Under these circumstances and considering the fact that we have suppressed our actual sales and we have not maintained any books of accounts for any AYs we hereby declare sales turnover for the following assessment years and offer 5% of sales turnover as profit and declare the same as additional in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 741/- 29,18,795/- 6 2019-20 15,00,00,000/- 30,00,000/- 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The assessee s only grievance before us was that the assessment order not bearing Document Identification Number (DIN), the assessment is, in view of CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (in ITA No. 63/2023, dated 20/3/2023) and Board Circular 19/2019, dated 14/8/2019, placing copies of the same on record, invalid. Even as he was unable to show us the legal basis for the same; s. 282B, with sub-heading Allotment of Document Identification Number , being omitted by Finance Act, 2011, w.e.f. 01.04.2011, nor indeed any Rule to that effect, assessment record was called for, allowing Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR, time to do so. She would vide her written submission dated 16/11/2023, place on record a communication dated 30/11/2021, the date of the assessment order, which bears DIN. Though Sh. Jyothison would object, stating that the said document is a separate document, titled Intimation letter for order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act , we find it as without merit and, rather, appears to have been made without reading the said document, bearing DIN: ITPA/AST/xx/xx/x ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssful delivery report dated 30.11.2021 (at 6:55 pm), is furnished (PB pgs. 29-31) (for AY 2016-17). It was also explained that orders for both the years, i.e., AYs. 2016-17 2019-20, were, besides being uploaded, also mailed to the assessee at his registered email ID. The assessment order for AY 2016-17 dated 30.11.2021 is thus valid. There has been, we agree with the Revenue, due compliance of s. 282A r/w r. 127A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, both read-out during hearing. We find no inconsistency, as Shri Jyothison would contend, between s. 282A of the Act and r. 127A. While the former postulates that any notice or other document issued under the Act shall be authenticated, the latter provides for the manner thereof. The two provisions are to be read in conjunction and in harmony. Section 282A(1) stands amended by Finance Act, 2016, w.e.f. 01.06.2016, substituting the words sign any manuscript by that authority by the words sign and issue in paper format or communicate in electronic format by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed . Sec. 282A(2) further provides that if the name and office of the designated income tax authority is printed, stamped or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee, accordingly, fails on his this plea. 6.2 At this stage, Shri Jyothison would state that the assessee seeks to withdraw his plea as to the assessment being not valid on account of non-authentication, and would rather press for adoption of net profit rate of 2%, i.e., as for the preceding years, as at 5% of the turnover. Even as explained during hearing, there is no need for the assessee to withdraw his plea, even as he may press an alternate ground, with in fact we having already disposed of the assessee s plea qua non-authentication. The alternate plea is admitted without the assessee having to withdraw his earlier plea. The same, however, is without merit. The assessment for AY 2019-20, as against a best judgement assessment u/s. 144 for the earlier years where the assessee had not responded to the notices u/s. 148(1), so that the AO, invoking s. 144, was by law obliged to gather materials and confront them to the assessee before making assessment, is u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The burden to prove his return of income, including the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC) (also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013-14 to 2019-20. There is nothing to show his statement being influenced or under duress. It is this profit rate that has accordingly been applied by the Revenue. Why, the turnover is borne out by the assessee s own software which would attract the presumption u/s. 292C, and, in fact, endorsed subsequently by the assessee through his counsel s, also representing before us, sworn affidavit. The difference in the two sets of turnovers, i.e., as per the software and as stated in Shri Shukoor s statement, being higher, is on account of it being an estimate, taken in the absence of the precise figures being available at the time of recording the statement, which was on the night of 15/16.10.2019. And which therefore stand corrected by the assessee subsequently, and on which aspect we observe no dispute. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee s turnover is even higher than that per it s software. The same, if anything, proves the validity of his statement its premise being suppression of turnover and profit, and which would extend to both, i.e., the turnover and the profit part thereof. Coming to the profit rates for other years, the Revenue has, in choosing the jewellers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not so constrained for the current year, for which the assessment is u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee returning income at Rs. 98,70,252, the AO has accepted the same. The same is consistent with the estimated turnover of Rs. 20 crores, yielding a profit rate of less than 5%. Shri Jyothison was in this regard specifically questioned by the Bench about the turnover per the software for f.y. 2018-19, i.e., the previous year relevant to AY 2019-20, and to which he replied as being not available. There is, in this view of the matter, no scope, factually and, therefore, legally; the ld. CIT(A) emphasizing the latter, for any reduction therein. That is, the assessee stands rightly assessed. We may clarify that we have dwelled on the facts of the case as we are, in confirming the assessed income, not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A). There is no law that the assessed income, a product of the law as applied to the facts of a case, cannot be lower than the returned income. Rather, it is only where an assessment fails, that the assessee may not be able to avoid the tax incident on his returned income (CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC)). 6.3 We decide accordingly. 7. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
