M/s Hotel Apsara, Thrissur V. ACIT, Thrissur

ITA 253/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4533 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: K R SUDHAKARAN PILLAI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY AR ORA, AM I.T.A. NO. 253/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 HOTEL APSARA, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. [PAN:AABFH 7556D] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RANGE 2, TRICHUR. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.R.SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI S.R.SENAPATI, SR. DR ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE O RDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 20.2.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006-07 CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.8. 2008. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM RUNNING A BAR ATTACHED HOTEL AT CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ON 20.12.2006 AT AN INCOME OF ` 24.73 LAKHS. THE SAME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UN DER THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURE BY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U /S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ACCOUNTS DISCLOSED A TURNOVER OF ` 265.64 LAKHS AND GROSS PROFIT (G.P.) RATIO AT 25.38 %. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE CERTAIN BILLS F OR THE SALE OF LIQUOR, AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH IT PRODUCED SALE BILLS FOR FOUR DAYS IN THE M ONTH OF MARCH, 2006. THE SAME YIELDED AN AVERAGE SALE OF ` 1,09,893/- PER DAY. AS THE SAME DID NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED IN ITS RESPECT. IT EXPLAINED THAT THE HOTEL HAD FUNCTIONED FOR ONLY ABOUT 270 DAYS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, FOR REASONS SUCH AS DELAY IN THE RENEWAL OF T HE EXCISE LICENCE, HARTAL, SABARIMALA