M/s. Nano Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gondal, Dist. Rajkot V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

ITA 404/RJT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0193 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 145(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No. 404/RJT/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s.Nano Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. R.K.Motors, Gel Chambers Gundala Road Gondal 360 311 बनाम/ Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1) Rajkot 360 001 (Appellant /Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AACCN 5168 R Assessee by -None- Revenue by Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.DR Date of Hearing 26/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ O R D E R PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 10/08/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot [“CIT(A)” in short] for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds of appeal is as under :- 1. The Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act, is bad in law as well as facts. 2. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as facts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of rejection of Books of Accounts under the provision of section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA No.404/Rjt/2018 M/s.Nano Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO AY : 2014-15 [2] 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law by confirming the addition by Rs.19,04,072/- made by the learned Assessing Officer by estimating Gross Profit Ratio at 3.05% as against 2.68% declared by the appellant. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, when addition itself not sustainable. 3. The assessee filed its return of income on 28/11/2014 declaring total income at Rs.5,11,660/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.19,04,072/- in respect of undisclosed income earned during the year as there is a differential amount to the Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of notice. In fact, on last occasion, i.e. 07/09/2022, the matter was adjourned on the ground that adjournment application filed by the assessee as the legal Counsel was not present. The matter was adjourned for hearing on 26/09/2022, but none appeared despite having knowledge of the adjournment date. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of submission of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). 6. The Ld.DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition as the GP ratio is to be taken on average basis, i.e. average of GP of three years, i.e. 3.05% as proposed in the show-cause notice. But the assessee declared GP at 2.68% in the instant year. Therefore, the differential GP percentage, i.e. 0.37% is required to be added to the GP. ITA No.404/Rjt/2018 M/s.Nano Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO AY : 2014-15 [3] Thus, the Ld.DR relied upon The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee at the assessment proceedings has not produced books of accounts and, therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts u/s.145(3) of the Act. The assessee has not demonstrated before the Assessing Officer that as to why the GP rate of 2.68% should be taken, then there was no proper maintenance of books of accounts or no books of accounts were shown during the assessment proceedings. The books of accounts were rejected by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has rightly held that the Assessing Officer was not obliged the trading business of the assessee without verification of books of accounts, bills and vouchers, etc. Onus was lies on the assessee to produce including details and vouchers for verification to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to justify the books of accounts declared by the assessee. This onus was not discharged by the assessee and, therefore, CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the grounds of appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19 th October 2022 at Ahmedabad. (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, Dated 19 /10/2022 ITA No.404/Rjt/2018 M/s.Nano Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO AY : 2014-15 [4] TC Nair,Sr.PS आदेश े /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. आ र आ / Concerned CIT 4. आ र आ ) (/ The CIT(A)-1, Rajkot 5. ! " ,आ र # र$/DR,ITAT, Rajkot, 6. ! %& फ ई /Guard file. आदेश " र/ BY ORDER, //True Copy// ह ज र (Asstt. Registrar) आ र # र$ ITAT, Rajkot 1. Date of dictation- .... ....17.10.2022 (dictation-pad 6 pages is attached with file) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ..........17.10.2022...... Other member ......10.10.2022............... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - ... ............... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk...... 19.10.22 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk...... 19.10.22 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order