Sri. Ashok Kumar Chowta, Mangalore V. DCIT, Mangalore

ITA 966/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7122 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN SHRI K V ARAVIN
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.966 (BANG) 2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUTA, NO.14-2-104/15/16, CLASSIC COLOUR LAB CITY LIGHT BLDG. BALMATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 575 001 PAN: ABYPC1840R APPELLANT VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE- STANDING COUNSEL FOR DEPTT. DATE OF HEARING : 01-12-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-12-2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A. M : THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-VI, BANGALORE DATED 29-08-2011 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW I OPPOSED TO THE L AW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER IS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS AND LAW/ ACT. ITA NO.966/(BANG)/2011 2 3. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN ESTIMATING T HE INCOME FROM CLASSIC COLOUR LAB EVEN THOUGH THE FIRM HAD INCURRED LOSS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND NOW ADOPTING AN INCOME OF RS.1.50 LACS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. 4. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN CONFIRMING INTERE ST CHARGED U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO, ADD TO. DELET E FROM OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME S UBMISSIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO SU BMITTED THAT ON PAGE- 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS A CHART OF INCO ME IN VARIOUS YEARS DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2009-10 AND AS P ER THE SAME, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THERE IS A LOSS OF RS.1,52 ,117/- AGAINST THE ADMITTED TURNOVER OF RS.105.84 LACS. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT RS.3.00 LACS BY THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.1.50 LACS IS E XCESSIVE. 4. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA-5.1 .3 OF HIS ORDER ON PAGWE-10 AND THE SAME IS RE-PRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE:- ITA NO.966/(BANG)/2011 3 5.1.3 THE AO HAS ISSUED THE TURNOVER AND THE PROFITS SHOWN IN VARIOUS YEARS STARTING FROM AY : 2004-05 TO AY:09-10 IN PAGE 3 PARA5.1 OF HIS ORDER. ACCORDING TO THIS, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE WA S LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,252,117/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. AY: 2007-08. THE INCOME DECLARED DURING AY: 2009-10 WAS RS.1,58,745/-. THE AO HAS MADE ESTIMATION AND HAS PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED AN INCOME OF RS.3.00 LAKHS. THERE IS NO BASIS OR SCIENTIFIC METHOD FOR SUCH AN ESTIMATION ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING TH4E FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED LOSS OFRS.1,52,117/- IN AY: 2007-08 AND HAD EARNED A PROFIT OF RS.1,58,745/- IN AY: 2009-10, IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE AO SHALL ADOPT AN INCOME OF RS.1.50 LAKHS FOR AY: 2008-09 INSTEAD OF HIS ESTIMATION OF RS.3.00 LAKHS.. 6. FROM THE ABOVE PARA REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT( A) THAT THE AO HAS MADE ESTIMATION AND HAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS E ARNED AN INCOME OF RS.3.00 LAKHS BUT THERE IS NO BASIS OR SCIENTIFI C METHOD FOR SUCH AN ESTIMATION. THEREAFTER, HE HAS HELD THAT CONSIDER ING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED LOSS OF RS.1,52,117/- IN AY: 2007-08 AND HAD EARNED A PROFIT OF RS.1,58,745/- IN AY: 2009-10, IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE AO SHALL ADOPT AN INCOME OF RS.1.50 LAKH IN THE PRE SENT YEAR AS AGAINST ESTIMATION BY THE AO OF RS.3.00 LAKHS. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A LOSS OF RS.1.52 LAKHS AND ITA NO.966/(BANG)/2011 4 IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS RS.1.58 LAKHS, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN THE PRESENT YEAR AT RS.1.00 LAKH WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE HOL D ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE: D A T E D : 16.12.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.966/(BANG)/2011 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. , , DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICT ATING MEMBER .. 3. !' # . $ %# / $ %# # & DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE PS/SR .PS. 4. ''() & * + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTAT ING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. * . %# / # . . %# # + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE PS/SR.PS .. 6 * !', + DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. ! !', ' , - ) IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. .% / 0 + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. * 1'2 / 34 & 5 + DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX &ENDORSEMENT 10. 0 6 / + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 11. * 7 & 0 8 + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. !) * 9() & 0 9() /#5 . + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13. * 9() + DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER .