Sarawati Bai Lahoti, Gulbarga V. Inocome-Tax Officer, Gulbarga

ITA 1394/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9359 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARESH SAKA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1394(BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 11) SMT. SARASWATI BAI LAHOTI, LAHOTI BUILDING, STATION ROAD, GULBARGA (KALABURAGI) PAN : ABAPL3757A APPELLANT VS THE ITO, WARD 1, GULBARGA (KALABURAGI) RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI NARESH SAKA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 20-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-09-2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A), GULBARGA (KALABURAGI) DATED 30.06. 2016 FOR A. Y. 2010 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 4 GROUNDS BU T THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS. 321,552/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE @ 0.7% OF TURNOVER BECAUSE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS THE SAME WERE SAID TO BE DESTROYED I N FIRE. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE SENT BY RPAD AND THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND H ENCE, THIS APPEAL IS HEARD EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS PER THE ORDER OF CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT THE ONLY REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) WAS THIS THAT INSTEAD OF AP PLYING RATE OF NET PROFIT OF OTHER PERSONS, THE N. P. RATE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PAST SHO ULD BE ADOPTED AS PER WHICH, THE ITA NO. 1394BANG) 2016 2 N. P. RATE OF THE PRESENT YEAR OF 0.46 % IS AT PAR WITH N. P. RATE OF 0.47 % IN A.Y. 2008 09 AND IS BETTER THAN THE N. P. RATE IN A. Y . 2009 10 OF 0.39%. I FIND THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OTHER ENTIT IES IN SAME BUSINESS ARE ALSO HAVING N. P. RATE AT PAR WITH THE RATE DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THIS IS ALSO NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ANY EARLIER YEAR, THE N.P. RAT E DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. HENC E, I FEEL THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THEREFOR E, I DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : .09.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO. 1394BANG) 2016 3 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAF T COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE O N WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER