AI Insights
The case involves Mr. Mithesh Kumar Jayantilal, the proprietor of M/s. Jaimataji Transport Company, who appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs.7,71,163/- to his income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. This addition was based on an estimated 8% of a suppressed turnover of Rs.96,39,541/-, alleged by the Assessing Officer (AO) following a survey at another transport company. The Tribunal noted that a similar case involving the assessee's father had resulted in a 6% estimation, as the assessee only acted as an agent and did not own any transport vehicles. The Tribunal decided to apply the same reasoning and reduced the addition to 6%.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124904 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
06-07-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
05-07-2023
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
05-03-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.160/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Mithesh Kumar Jayantilal, 103, 130/30, Steel Centre Building, Near Urdu School, Kasaigalli, Bunder, Mangalore, Karnataka – 575 001. PAN : AFHPJ 0632 F Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Mangalore. APPELLANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Shri.Satya Prakash Singh, CA Revenue by :Smt. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Date of hearing:06.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:07.07.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s Order dated 14.10.2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13. 2. There is a delay of 76 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of this appeal. In the said affidavit, it is stated that assessee is not well versed with the technicalities of online procedures of Income Tax Appeal and he did not see the order passed by the CIT(A) till he was informed by his colleague about the CIT(A) passing of the said order. As soon as he came ITA No.160/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 4 to know about the passing of the said order, he immediately took steps to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, there was a delay of 76 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As regards the condonation of delay, we are of the view that there is good and sufficient reason in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal in time. Accordingly, the short delay of 76 days is condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7,71,163/- being 8% of the suppressed turnover i.e., Rs.96,39,541/- as alleged by the AO. 5. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee, an individual, is proprietor of M/s. Jaimataji Transport Company. The proprietary concern is a goods transporting agent, earning commission income. For the Assessment Year 2012-13, the return as filed on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,81,040/-. There was a survey conducted under section 133A of the Act on 24.11.2015 in the case of M/s. Royal Transport Company, Mangalore. Following the survey, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 21.09.2017 to the assessee. The AO was of the view that assessee being engaged in the business as that of M/s. Royal Transport Company was likely to have not recorded in its books of accounts substantial amount of freight charges collected in cash as in the case of M/s. Royal Transport Company. Since there was no compliance with numerous notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO was forced to complete the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2018. In the said ITA No.160/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 4 Assessment Order, the AO made an addition of Rs.96,39,541/- as suppressed turnover. The AO for making the estimation of the suppressed turnover had taken note of the statement recorded during the course of survey in the case of M/s. Royal Transport Company from Shri. Prakash Kumar Ishwarlal who was the GPA holder for the assessee as well as for M/s. Royal Transport Company. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO for making the addition of the entire suppressed turnover amounting to Rs.96,39,541/-, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) justified the estimation of suppressed turnover at Rs.96,39,541/-. However, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% of the suppressed turnover i.e., Rs.7,71,163/-. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that on identical facts in the case of assessee’s father, the Tribunal in ITA Nos.158 and 159/Bang/2023 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 (order dated 08.06.2023) had restricted the addition to 6% of the suppressed turnover instead of 8% made by the CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that a similar view may be taken in this case also since the facts are identical. 8. The learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee’s father has restricted the addition to 6% of the suppressed turnover. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee’s father reads as follows: “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 ITA No.160/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 4 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. 10. In the instant case also, assessee is not owning any transport vehicle and is working only as an agent for commission. Therefore, the reasoning given in the Tribunal’s order in case of assessee’s father (supra) for reducing the addition from8% to 6% of the suppressed turnover will have application for this case also. Hence, following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited supra, we reduce the addition to 6% of the suppressed turnover of Rs.96,39,541/- instead of 8% made by the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 07.07.2023. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.CIT4.CIT(A) 5.DR, ITAT, Bangalore.6.Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
