Kamala Bussa, Siddepet V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Siddipet

ITA 2198/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7631 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2198 OF 2017 KAMALA BUSSA SIDDIPET. PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2198/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) SMT. KAMALA BUSSA, PROP. BHUVANESHWARI WINES, SIDDIPET 502103 PAN: AFIPB9143E VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SIDDIPET (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SMT. S. SANDHYA FOR REVENUE : SHRI NILANJAN DEY, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-7, HYDERABAD, DATED 23.10. 2017. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM LIQUOR TRADING AT 5% OF T HE COST OF GOODS PUT TO SALE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR CASES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN HOLDIN G 3% OF THE COST OF GOODS PUT TO SALE AS REASONABLE ESTIMATION OF INCOME. HE PRAYED FOR SIMILAR RELIEF IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AS WELL. 3. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.04.2019 ITA NO 2198 OF 2017 KAMALA BUSSA SIDDIPET. PAGE 2 OF 3 4. WE FIND THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COORD INATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI VENKATESWA RA WINES, SECUNDERABAD HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME IS JUSTIFIED. IT IS ONLY THE R ATE AT WHICH THE INCOME IS TO BE ESTIMATED IS BEFORE US. A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE INCO ME AT 5% OF THE COST OF GOODS SOLD, WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THE ESTIMATION AT 3% OF THE COST OF GOODS SOLD. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF VENKATESWARA WINES, NIZ AMABAD (SUPRA), THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. KAMLEKAR SHANKAR LAL (SUPRA) TO HOLD AS UNDER : '6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS CALLED FOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME. THEREFORE, AO HAD ESTIMATED TH E INCOME OF THE' ASSESSEE AT 2.5% OF THE TURNOVER. THE CIT WANTS THE SAME TO BE ESTIMATED AT 5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AN ASS ESSEE CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS OF SALE OF IMFL HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME A T 5% OF THE TURNOVER. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS HELD BY THE COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ITA.NO.1206/HYD/2015 SAI VENKATESWARA WINES, SE CUNDERABAD UNIFORM NET PROFIT CANNOT BE ADOPTED IN EACH AND EVERY CASE OF SIMILAR BUSINESS. ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT MUST BE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS INVOLVED I N EACH AND EVERY CASE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AU IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 2.5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED.' 5.1. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IS AGREEAB LE TO THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 3% OF THE COST OF GOODS SOLD. AS THE FACTS BEFORE U S ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VENKATESWARA WINES, NIZ AMABAD (SUPRA) AND THE UNIFORM RATE OF PROFIT CANNOT BE ADOPTED IN THE CAS E OF EVERY ASSESSEE IN SIMILAR BUSINESS, WE ALLOW GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE BEFORE U S BEING SIMILAR, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO TAKE A C ONTRARY VIEW. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AN D THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 3% OF THE COST OF GOODS PUT TO SALE. ITA NO 2198 OF 2017 KAMALA BUSSA SIDDIPET. PAGE 3 OF 3 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 25 TH APRIL, 2019. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SMT. KAMALA BUSSA, PROP: BHUVANESHWARI WINES, 12- 2-117/1, GANESH NAGAR, SIDDIPET-502103 2 ITO WARD-1 SUBHASH ROAD, SIDDIPET 502103 3 CIT (A)-7 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 7 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER