Abdullaziz Jaan Mohammad Ansari, Dhule V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dhule

ITA 593/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6247 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 नधा रण वष /Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-14 Abdullaziz Jaan Mohammad Ansari, Plot No.23, Vadjai Road, Gafoor Nagar, Dhule – 424 001 Maharashtra PAN : AFZPA5959E Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the two appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi both dated 12.02.2024 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in the above captioned two appeals of the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.593/PUN/2024 for the assessment year 2012-13 are stated herein. Assessee by : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 27.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 27.06.2024 ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 2 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in livestock under the name and style of “M/s. Aziz Trading”. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 28.11.2012 offering the income to tax on presumptive basis u/s.44AD by estimating income at 8% disclosing a total turnover of Rs.32,80,760/-. Subsequently, on information received from the AIR, wherein, the Venky’s Group made sales of Rs.12,15,32,889/- to the appellant during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13, therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed an opinion that the income escaped assessment of tax, accordingly, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 17.10.2019. In response to the said notice, the appellant filed return of income on 17.10.2019 declaring business turnover of Rs.12,75,10,580/- and offered income of Rs.9,38,530/- only. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 16.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by assessing total income at 8% of turnover on undisclosed cash purchases. 4. Being aggrieved by the above, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC, contending that the percentage of profit adopted by the AO is unreasonably excessive and not based on any evidence. During the course of proceedings before the CIT(A)NFAC, the assessee had cited following comparables i.e. Aziz Trading Dhule, M S Traders, Naeem Ahmed Abdul Shakoor Quraishi, Indian Boiler Trading Company, Mohammad Farooque Abdul Aziz Ansari and Dhulia Golden Trading Co Dhule, wherein, the profit disclosed is only 1% of the turnover. However, the CIT(A)/NFAC without dealing with the comparables relied upon by the appellant had partly allowed the appeal, by directing the AO to estimate the income at 5% of the turnover. ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 3 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. The ld. Authorised Representative referring to the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2011-12 submits that the Tribunal remitted back the same issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for adverting to the comparables given by the assessee, being in same line of business. It is therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order(s) and remitting the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. On the other hand ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 8. We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find in assesse’s own case involving identical facts, the Tribunal in ITA No.525/PUN/2024 relating to the A.Y. 2011-12 remitted back the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC holding as under : “9. As regards merits of the appeal, we have carefully gone through the order of CIT(A), wherein the ld. CIT(A) without adverting to the comparables, who are in the same line of business had disposed of the appeal by directing the AO to 5% of the turnover as profit. The approach adopted by the CIT(A) is subjective and cannot be appreciated in the eye of law, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is being set aside direct the CIT(A) to deal with the submissions of the assessee and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.” 9. Since the facts remain identical for the assessment year under consideration, the parity of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal shall hold good for this assessment year as well. Accordingly, we direct the CIT(A) to pass the order dealing with the submissions of the assessee and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 4 ITA No.594/PUN/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 : 11. Since the facts and issues involved in this appeal of the assessee is also identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.593/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed in the very terms. 12. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27 th day of June, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 27 th June, 2024 Satish आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 नधा रण वष /Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-14 Abdullaziz Jaan Mohammad Ansari, Plot No.23, Vadjai Road, Gafoor Nagar, Dhule – 424 001 Maharashtra PAN : AFZPA5959E Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the two appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi both dated 12.02.2024 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in the above captioned two appeals of the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.593/PUN/2024 for the assessment year 2012-13 are stated herein. Assessee by : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 27.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 27.06.2024 ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 2 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in livestock under the name and style of “M/s. Aziz Trading”. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 28.11.2012 offering the income to tax on presumptive basis u/s.44AD by estimating income at 8% disclosing a total turnover of Rs.32,80,760/-. Subsequently, on information received from the AIR, wherein, the Venky’s Group made sales of Rs.12,15,32,889/- to the appellant during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13, therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed an opinion that the income escaped assessment of tax, accordingly, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 17.10.2019. In response to the said notice, the appellant filed return of income on 17.10.2019 declaring business turnover of Rs.12,75,10,580/- and offered income of Rs.9,38,530/- only. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 16.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by assessing total income at 8% of turnover on undisclosed cash purchases. 4. Being aggrieved by the above, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC, contending that the percentage of profit adopted by the AO is unreasonably excessive and not based on any evidence. During the course of proceedings before the CIT(A)NFAC, the assessee had cited following comparables i.e. Aziz Trading Dhule, M S Traders, Naeem Ahmed Abdul Shakoor Quraishi, Indian Boiler Trading Company, Mohammad Farooque Abdul Aziz Ansari and Dhulia Golden Trading Co Dhule, wherein, the profit disclosed is only 1% of the turnover. However, the CIT(A)/NFAC without dealing with the comparables relied upon by the appellant had partly allowed the appeal, by directing the AO to estimate the income at 5% of the turnover. ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 3 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. The ld. Authorised Representative referring to the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2011-12 submits that the Tribunal remitted back the same issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for adverting to the comparables given by the assessee, being in same line of business. It is therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order(s) and remitting the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. On the other hand ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 8. We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find in assesse’s own case involving identical facts, the Tribunal in ITA No.525/PUN/2024 relating to the A.Y. 2011-12 remitted back the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC holding as under : “9. As regards merits of the appeal, we have carefully gone through the order of CIT(A), wherein the ld. CIT(A) without adverting to the comparables, who are in the same line of business had disposed of the appeal by directing the AO to 5% of the turnover as profit. The approach adopted by the CIT(A) is subjective and cannot be appreciated in the eye of law, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is being set aside direct the CIT(A) to deal with the submissions of the assessee and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.” 9. Since the facts remain identical for the assessment year under consideration, the parity of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal shall hold good for this assessment year as well. Accordingly, we direct the CIT(A) to pass the order dealing with the submissions of the assessee and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes ITA Nos.593 & 594/PUN/2024 4 ITA No.594/PUN/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 : 11. Since the facts and issues involved in this appeal of the assessee is also identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.593/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed in the very terms. 12. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27 th day of June, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 27 th June, 2024 Satish आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune