INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL V. SHREE BALAJI HOME MAKERS, NEW PANVEL

ITA 202/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7385 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MEHTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.202/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, 2 nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector-17, NEW PANVEL. Maharashtra. PIN-410 206. vs. Shree Balaji Home Makers, Unit No.1 & 2, Pushp Kalash, Gate No.45/1, Village- Shilttar, Raichur, Panvel. Maharashtra. PIN – 410 206. PAN ABVFS0499M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta For Assessee : -None- Date of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057227166(1), dated 19.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.202/PUN./2024 3 ITA.No.202/PUN./2024 3. Mr. Mehta next invited my attention to the NFAC’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition as under : 4. Mr. Mehta vehemently argued in light of the Revenue’s pleadings that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned estimated addition going by the assessee’s sales tax return. He highlighted the fact that the Assessing Officer had granted much a relief to the assessee in applying 8% profit rate on it’s turnover in real estate development business. I find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments once it has come on record that no income had actually accrued to the assessee in the relevant previous year. Faced 4 ITA.No.202/PUN./2024 with this situation, I hereby quote Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT 1954 SCR 211 (SC) settling the law long back that only an instance of reasonable certainty give rise to accrual of taxable income in an assessee’s case, which is completely missing herein. It is made clear that there is no material at the Revenue’s behest indicating accrual income in assessee’s hands. I thus see no reason to interfere with the learned NFAC’s order. Rejected accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.05.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 06 th May, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.