M/s Maheshwari Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. ITO, WD-9(3), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1291/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1444 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KALYAN NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT GOYEL STAFF OF AEE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.B ALAGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NO. 1291/KOL/20 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 M/S MAHESHWARI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. -VS- ITO , WARD-9(3), KOLKATA [PAN: AAECM 6942 L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI BHARAT GOYEL- STAFF OF AEE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI KALYAN NATH, ADDL. CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2017 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -12, KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD CITA] IN APPEAL NO. 584/CIT(A)- 12/KOL./WD-9(3)/KOL/2014-15 DATED 08.09.2015 AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-9(3), KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDER SEC TION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 28.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS ES TIMATION OF NET PROFIT BY THE LD. AO IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY PASS ING AN EX PARTE ORDER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND EMBROIDERY IN SAREES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 ON 08.10.2010 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOM E OF RS. 11,10,025/-. DUE TO 2 ITA NO.1291KOL/2015 MAHESHWARI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. A.YR.2010-11 2 CONTINUOUS NON-COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LD. AO BY NOT FURNISHING THE REQUISITE DETAILS, THE LD. AO SOUGHT TO COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT BY RESORTING TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT. THE LD. AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN TURNOVER OF RS. 14.60 CRORES IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HAD REPOR TED NET PROFIT OF RS. 3,27 LACS ONLY. HE OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE TURNOVER HAD INCREASED FRO M 7.60 CRORES TO 12.78 CRORES IN THE TRADING BUSINESS, THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE IS VERY LOW. ACCORDINGLY, HE DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 3% OF TOTAL TURNOVER AND ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS. 43,79,399/- AS AGAINST RS. 3,27,213/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 40,52,186/- TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE MANY NON-COMPLIANCES ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE LD. AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEAL)-12, KOLKATA CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL)-12, KOLKATA ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-12 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AT 3% OF THE TOTAL TUR NOVER BEING RS. 43,79,399/- WITHOUT HAVING ANY EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION IN RESPECT OF TAKING A HIGHER NET PROFIT AGAINST THE NET PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF THIS APPEAL. 5. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED ONL Y BY ITS STAFF M/S BHARAT GOYEL. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT ON TH E DATE OF HEARING BEFORE US THROUGH ITS STAFF M/S BHARAT GOYEL AND THE SAME WAS REJECTE D BY THIS BENCH AS IT WAS DECIDED TO 3 ITA NO.1291KOL/2015 MAHESHWARI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. A.YR.2010-11 3 REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) DU E TO EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE, TO REMAND THE APPEAL TO THE FILE O F THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOT TO TAKE MORE THAN TWO ADJOURNMENTS BEFORE HIM, WHICH SHOULD ALSO BE RESORTED TO ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL AND BONA FIDE CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDINGL Y, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20.09.2017 SD/- SD/- [N.V. VASUDEVAN] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.09.2017 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S MAHESHWARI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., 4D, CHAITAN SE TT STREET, BASEMENT, KOLKATA- 700007. 2. ITO, WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, 3, GOVT. PLACE (W), 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001, 3..C.I.T.(A)-12, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S