M/s. Harikrushna Infrastructure, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT--3, Ahmedabad

ITA 179/AHD/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Harikrushna Infrastructure appealing against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which was later transferred to PCIT-3, Ahmedabad. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2014-15, where the assessee's return was initially assessed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a significant increase in assessed income. The PCIT later intervened, suggesting that the assessment was erroneous as it did not follow the appropriate profit estimation method for builders/developers, leading to an underestimation of income. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to procedural delays and the absence of the appellant's representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125673 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . No .1 79 /A h d / 20 21 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 14- 15 ) M/ s . Ha r i kr us hn a I nf r as tr uc t ur e, 27, A r i ha nt B un ga lo w s, G a la G y mk ha n a R o ad , S out h B o pa l, Ah me da bad - 3 80 05 8 V s. The P r . C I T - 3 , A h m e da ba d [ P AN N o. A A FF H 9 18 6B ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Samir Tekriwal, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 04.07.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 19.07.2023 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, (in short “Ld. PCIT”) Bhopal, vide order dated 29.03.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeals:- “1. In law, on facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed u/s 263 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Bhopal, MP, subsequently, transferred to the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad is against natural justice, bad in law & deserves to be cancelled. 2. On facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT- 1, Bhopal, has grossly erred in passing order under section 263 ITA No. 179/Ahd/2021 M/s. Harikrushna Infrastructure vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 2 - though he/she had not jurisdictions to pass the order. Therefore, the order itself is bad in law and void ab intitio. 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend any ground’s, of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, we are observed that the present appeal is time barred by 770 days. Further, despite having granted multiple opportunities of hearing to the assessee none is appearing on behalf of the assessee. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for impugned assessment year on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of 1,17,670/-. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment order ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued to the assessee. In the ex-parte assessment order, total income was assessed at Rs. 50,97,300/- after disallowing 10% of direct and indirect expenses claimed by the assessee. 4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax initiated 263 proceedings by observing that in this case the assessee firm is a builder and it has not cooperated in completion of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the best judgment could have been completed by adopting a yardstick of 8% of the total turnover for estimation of income in cases of builder / developer / civil contractor. Accordingly, since the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry looking into the rate of profit under similar business circumstances, the Pr. CIT held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as it has led to the gross ITA No. 179/Ahd/2021 M/s. Harikrushna Infrastructure vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 3 - underestimation of income, as the Assessing Officer has failed to make a proper best judgment order in the case. 5. The assessee is in appeal before against the aforesaid order. As observed earlier, despite several opportunities the assessee has not caused appearance before us. Further, it is also observed that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 770 days. Accordingly, we have gone through the order passed by the Principal CIT in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the same. However, in the absence of any contrary submission made by the assessee we have no alternative but to uphold the order passed by the authorities below. The assessee’s appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. 6. In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 19/07/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/07/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad