Jayashree Chadlavada, Visakhapatnam V. THE ITO, Visakhapatnam

ITA 646/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8874 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K SETHI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 646/VIZ/2014 (ASST. YEAR : 2010-11) SMT. JAYASHREE CHADLAVADA, 31-13-26/1, KURMANAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. V. ITO, WARD-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. ADJPC 9161 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM FCA. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI M.K. SETHI SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 08/06/2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/06/2017. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 26/09/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS ALL THE GROUNDS EXCEPT GROUND NO.1.2. TO THIS, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION. THEREFORE, SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A BAR & RESTAURANT IN THE NAME OF VEERANJANEYA RESTAURANT & BAR. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 9,78,080/-, WHICH 2 ITA NO.646/VIZ/2014 (SMT. JAYASHREE CHADLAVADA) WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT'). THEREAFTER, FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF THE SALE BILLS AND OTHER EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS OR VOUCHERS. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 20% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. 4 . ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) SCALED DOWN THE ESTIMATION FROM 20% TO 15% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. MALLIKHARJUNA BAR & RESTAURANT IN ITA NO. 186/HYD/2012, BY ORDER DATED 28/06/2012 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 10% OF PURCHASES OR STOCK PUT TO SALE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED. 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3 ITA NO.646/VIZ/2014 (SMT. JAYASHREE CHADLAVADA) 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE IS RUNNING A BAR & RESTAURANT AND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING NET PROFIT AT 4.45%. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING LIQUOR BUSINESS AND RESTAURANT BUSINESS. THE SALE FIGURES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS SALES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT 20% OF PURCHASE PRICE. ON APPEAL, BY CONSIDERING ALL THE DETAILS, LD.CIT(A) SCALED DOWN THE SAME TO 15%. BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE NON- MAINTENANCE OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 15% IS REASONABLE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 10. SO FAR AS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S.MALLIKHARJUNA BAR & RESTAURANT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED, THE SALE OF FOOD ITEMS ARE VERY LESS, COMPARED TO SALE OF LIQUOR AND BEER AND, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED AT 10%. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF RESTAURANT AND ALSO BAR. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED 4 ITA NO.646/VIZ/2014 (SMT. JAYASHREE CHADLAVADA) ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09 TH JUNE, 2017. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - SMT. JAYASHREE CHADLAVADA, 31-13-26/1, KURMANAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE REVENUE - ITO, WARD-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE CIT-1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R., VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER