SH. MOHD SALEEM MIR, ANANTNAG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), ANANTNAG

ITA 113/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8258 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 113/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Mohd. Saleem Mir, Prop. M/s Shalimar Engineering Works, Nai Basti, Anantnag, Kashmir [PAN: ATZPM 1762H] (Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Anantnag (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. M.A. Mir, Cost Accountant Respondent by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar dated 08.10.2018 in respect of AY 2010-11. ITA No.113/Asr/2019 Mohd. Saleem Mir v. ITO 2 2. At the time hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the assessee is a civil contractor who is declaring a GP rate of 7.46%. However, the ld. CIT(A) has adopted the GP rate of 8% as against 10% applied by the Assessing Officer relying on the different case laws as per the impugned order. When the AR was asked to justify the claim of G.P. rate of 7.46% shown appellant as against the application of the 8% GP rate by the ld. CIT(A) in terms of trading results as per the past history of the assessee’s own case or similar case of a civil contractor on parity of facts, he could not file any documentary evidence to substantiate in rebuttal to application of gross rate of 8% by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the counsel, in the virtual hearing before the bench stated that he is not willing to carry out such exhaustive exercises of collecting documentary evidences to substantiate such a claim and rather wish to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, he prayed to withdraw the appeal. 3. The Ld. D.R. has no objection to the assessee’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal during the course of virtual hearing. ITA No.113/Asr/2019 Mohd. Saleem Mir v. ITO 3 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order