SHRI HARBANS LAL SHARMA, KATHUA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 ( 4 ), KATHUA

ITA 69/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Harbans Lal Sharma, the proprietor of Modern Sales Corporation, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The dispute centered on the assessment year 2012-13, where the AO had assessed the total income at Rs.9,75,489 under 'Income from Business or Profession', applying a gross profit rate of 8% on sales receipts. The assessee contested this, arguing that he merely earned a commission of 1-2% on the sale proceeds from recharging prepaid telecom coupons. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions or provided a proper hearing, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114654 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 69/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Harbans Lal Sharma, Prop. Modern Sales Corporation, Kalibari Chowk, Kathua (J&K). [PAN: AKLPS 5335D] (Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Kathaua, (J&K) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.01.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2012-13. I.T.A. No. 69/Asr/2023 Harbans Lal Sharma v. ITO 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi thereby confirming the order of the Assessing Officer are both against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the said order. As such the assessment order passed is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled and further the order passed by the worthy CIT(A) thereby confirming the order of the AO is also bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,75,489/- made by the AO without applying his mind and without appreciating the facts of this case. The authorities below did not appreciate that the assessee was dealing in recharge of prepaid telecom coupons and merely earned commission on recharge which is about 1-2% of the sale proceeds. 4. That the reopening u/s 147/148 is illegal, invalid and void abinitio and the assessment completed is liable to be cancelled. 5. That the AO was not justified in applying a rate of 8% on sales receipts/receipts and the worthy CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of this case and without applying his mind. As such the order confirming the assessment made at Rs.9,75,489/- is not called for and the same may be cancelled. Alternatively the rate applied @ 8% on the total receipts is very high & excessive looking into the nature of business carried on by the assessee. 6. That any other grounds of appeal which may be argued at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. A proposed ground no. 2, the appellant-assessee has challenged that the assessee has not been granted reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard by the AO before passing the assessment order and therefore, I.T.A. No. 69/Asr/2023 Harbans Lal Sharma v. ITO 3 the impugned ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the said assessment order passed by the AO, is bad in law. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant did not file the return of income for the relevant financial year, however, he has paid an advance tax of Rs.6,580/-. The appellant has further submitted that he deals in recharge of prepaid telecom coupons and merely earns commission on recharge which is @ 1- 2% of the sale proceeds. Therefore, the AO has erred in taxing the gross profit @8% of the gross receipts. He also submitted that the demand raised by the AO is unjust and not valid in the eyes of the law. He further submitted that the worthy CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of this case and rejecting grounds of appeal without application of mind. He has reiterated the relevant part of brief note filed before authorities as under: It is further relevant to point out that I have also given a chart in written submissions before CIT(A), copy of which is placed at Page No.3 to 5 of the paper-book wherefrom it is clear that net profit in this line of business is very nominal. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the relevant figures of comparison are given from AY 2012-13 to 2016-17. S.No. Description Asstt. Year 2012-13 Asstt. Year 2013-14 Asstt. Year 2014-15 Asstt. Year 2015-16 Asstt. Year 2016-17 1. Turnover 11006902.83 12014822.00 18533645.00 1251 1582.00 6872189.00 2. Gross Profit 446030.11 394902.00 650036.00 710401.00 270816.00 3. Net Profit 143806.00 103289.33 130298.00 294544.00 173075.00 4. GP % 4% 3.29% 3.51% 5.6% 3.94% 5. NP % 1.3% 0.85% 0.70% 2.3% 2.51% I.T.A. No. 69/Asr/2023 Harbans Lal Sharma v. ITO 4 From the perusal of the same, your honour will find that the rate of profit shown during the year under consideration is 1.3% against accepted rate of 0.85% for the AY 2013-14. Furthermore, it may be pointed out that the department while applying the rate of 8% on the total receipts has not allowed any opportunity of being heard and furthermore the department has not quoted any comparable case before applying this rate of 8%. It may be submitted that the history of this case is very relevant and the AO should not ignore the same before applying the rate of 8%. Thus, viewed from all the angles, the rate applied is not at all justified and accordingly the addition made may be deleted as it has got no basis, reasons and justification. Under the circumstances, he pleaded that the orders of Revenue Authorities are against the facts on record and hence untenable under the law. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR stands by the impugned order. 6. Heard rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order and written submission by the appellant. Admittedly, the revenue authorities passed orders ex parte qua the assesse. The Ld. AR argued that the worthy CIT(A) decided the case exparte without granting opportunity of the hearing against the ex parte assessment order passed under section 144/147 of the act and that while deciding the case ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and arbitrary confirmed the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act on 12.12.2019 assessing the total income at Rs.9,75,489/-, under the head I.T.A. No. 69/Asr/2023 Harbans Lal Sharma v. ITO 5 ‘Income from Business or Profession' which is contrary to the facts on record that the appellant assessee was dealing in, recharge of prepaid telecom coupons and merely earned commission on such recharges which is about 1-2% of the sale proceeds. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has stated that the appellant has failed to explain these transactions during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings. The explanation of the appellant that he could not furnish the return of income due to his prolonged hospitalization and that he was dealing in recharge of prepaid telecom coupons seems to be without any concrete basis. However, neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the relevant issue regarding appellants claim that he is dealing in, recharge of prepaid telecom coupons and merely earned commission on such recharges which is about 1-2% of the sale proceeds. The lower authorities ought to have disproved the claim of the assesse that he earned only commission in recharging prepaid coupons which is about 1-2% of the sale proceeds in order to arrive at the conclusion of business receipts with corroborative evidence before applying gross profit rate if any, as per law. In our view, the authorities below have acted in violation of principles of natural justice, and against the spirit of law. I.T.A. No. 69/Asr/2023 Harbans Lal Sharma v. ITO 6 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: “Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment - Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done - Fact that the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is assessment order that counts — Assessment order set aside and matter remanded to assessing authority for fresh consideration.” 9. In the view above, we consider it deem fit to restore back the matter to the file of the Ld. AO to pass de novo assessment after considering the written submission and evidences filed on record and may be filed before him during the fresh proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall co-operate in the assessment proceedings before the AO. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant I.T.A. No. 69/Asr/2023 Harbans Lal Sharma v. ITO 7 (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order