Cube Infovision Pvt. Ltd. , Delhi V. ITO ward 6(4), New Delhi

ITA 5947/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9642 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5947/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Cube Infovision Pvt.Ltd., 7575, Ram Nagar, Old Baraf Khana, Paharganj, Delhi-110055. PAN-AACCC5053C vs ITO, Ward-6(4), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Sachin Jain, CA Respondent by None Date of Hearing 22.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010- 11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi dated 30.04.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That both the lower authorities were not justified in making and confirming the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 since the same was not in accordance with the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is illegal on account of various grounds. 2. That both the lower authorities were unjustified in making and confirming the reassessment order on the company which was strike^ off in the register of Companies. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in not obeying the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other Courts and Tribunals and appropriate costs may be levied for not following the law of Jurisprudence. Page | 2 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, an addition of Rs.2,29,500/- made by the Ld. AO and subsequently confirmed by the CIT (A) deserves to be deleted. 5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the relief of Rs. 82,670/- on account of estimated addition in net profit. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing with the permission of the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press Ground Nos. 1 & 2. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Brief facts of the case are that case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued requisite notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee company filed its reply. The AO pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings, various statutory notices were issued but no one attended the proceedings. Therefore, the AO proceeded to frame assessment vide order dated 05.12.2017 and made addition of Rs.2,38,196/- on account of contractual receipts being the 30% of the total receipts of Rs.7,93,987/-. Further, the AO treated the credits in bank account as the receipt and taxed 8% of total credits of Rs.82,670/-. Thus, the AO assessed the income at Rs.3,20,866/- against the NIL returned income. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the Page | 3 assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) however, in respect of addition of Rs.82,670/- observed that the same is included in the addition made by estimating profit @ 30%. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition purely on the basis of estimation. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, there is no one present on behalf of the Revenue. This appeal was fixed for clarification from assessee. Therefore, appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of Ld. DR. 7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has made addition purely on the estimation basis without giving any reason as to why 30% of the receipt is treated as profit. Moreover, looking to the facts of the present case and to sub-serve the interest of justice, the entire receipt is taxed @ 8%. Hence, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed and the addition is sustained to the extent of Rs.63,519/- rest of addition is hereby deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 th September, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Page | 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI