Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal, Mangalore V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 157/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal, the proprietor of Vikrant Cargo Movers, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Panaji, Goa, for the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was directed against the estimation of income at 8% of a suppressed turnover of Rs.90,92,011, as alleged by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee did not appear at the hearing, and the appeal was decided based on the submissions of the Departmental Representative and the precedents of similar cases. The Tribunal found sufficient grounds to reduce the estimated income percentage from 8% to 6%, aligning with previous rulings in similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129266 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Mr. Jayantilal Jadavji Raiyarela in ITA Nos.158 & 159/Bang/2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA No.157/Bang/2023 Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.157/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal 13-10, 1368, Basur Compound Field Street Mangalore Karnataka 575 001 PAN NO : AAGPI1383N Vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Mangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : N O N E Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)-2, Panaji, Goa for the assessment year 2015-16 dated 14.10.2022. The only issue in this appeal is with regard to estimation of income at Rs.7,27,361/- being 8% of suppressed turnover of Rs.90,92,011/- as alleged by the AO. 2. None appeared for the assessee. We proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. 3. There was a delay of 76 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the delay that he is not well-versed with the technicalities of online procedure of Income Tax Rules and hence, he did not see the ld. ITA No.157/Bang/2023 Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal, Mangalore Page 2 of 3 CIT(A) order till he was informed by his colleague about passing of order by ld. CIT(A). As soon as he came to know about passing of this order, he immediately took steps to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, there was delay of 76 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to condonation of delay, in our opinion, there is a good and sufficient reason in not filing the appeals before this Tribunal in time. Accordingly, this short delay of 76 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Facts of the issue in dispute are that there was a search in the case of Ahmed Sharif, a prominent arecanut dealer. Consequent to this search, a survey was carried out in the assessee’s firm i.e. Vikrant Cargo Movers, where the assessee was proprietor. During the course of survey, the revenue authorities found that there was suppressed turnover to the tune of Rs.90,92,011/-. To that extent, addition was made by AO. The assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) estimated the income of assessee at 8% suppression turnover. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, similar issue came for consideration in the case of Mr. Jayantilal Jadavji Raiyarela in ITA Nos.158 & 159/Bang/2023 dated 8.6.2023, wherein held as under: “5. The ld. A.R. pleaded that income of the assessee may be estimated at 5% of suppressed turnover instead 8% worked out by ld. CIT(A) which is very high, since the assessee is not owning any transport vehicle and working only as an agent for commission. In our opinion, it is reasonable to estimate the income of the assessee at 6% of Rs.1,11,76,495/- and Rs.1,03,24,086/- for both Assessment years instead of 8% estimated by the ld. CIT(A) in these Assessment years. The assessee will get partial relief and the ground of appeal in these assessment years is partly allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” ITA No.157/Bang/2023 Mr. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal, Mangalore Page 3 of 3 6.1 In view of the above order of the Tribunal, having a consistent view, we direct the AO to estimate the income at 6% of suppressed turnover on Rs.90,92,011/-. Ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th June, 2023 Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 12 th June, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.