Tayab Khan, Angul V. ITO, Ward-2, Dhenkanal

MA 13/CTK/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3628 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years :2008 Tayab Khan, Ghantapada, New Fish Godown, Near Railway Station, Talcher, Angul PAN/GIR No. AJRPK 1265 H (Appellant Assessment Years : 2008 Imran Khan, Ghantapada, New Fish Godown, Near Railway Station, Talcher, Angul. PAN/GIR No.ARQPK 3999 P (Appellant Assessment Years : 2008 Khusida Bibi, Ghantapada, New Fish Godown, Near Railway Station, Talcher, Angul. PAN/GIR No. AGNPB 8072 A Assessee by IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.As.07 to 13/CTK/2021 (in IT(ss)A Nos.06 to 12/CTK/2018 Assessment Years :2008-2009 to 2014 Tayab Khan, Ghantapada, New Fish Godown, Near Railway Station, Talcher, Angul Vs. ITO, Ward - Dhenkanal PAN/GIR No. AJRPK 1265 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent M.A.No.14 to 20/CTK/2021 (in IT(ss)A Nos.13 to 18/CTK/2018 and ITA No. 34/CTK/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-2009 to 2014 Imran Khan, Ghantapada, New Fish Godown, Near Railway Station, Talcher, Angul. Vs. ITO, Ward - Dhenkanal PAN/GIR No.ARQPK 3999 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent M.A.Nos.21 to 27/CTK/2021 (in IT(ss)A Nos.19 to 25/CTK/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-2009 to 2014 Khusida Bibi, Ghantapada, New Fish Godown, Near Railway Station, Talcher, Angul. Vs. ITO, Ward - Dhenkanal PAN/GIR No. AGNPB 8072 A .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.Panda, Sr Adv & Shri B.Panda Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Date of Hearing : 8/7 Date of Pronouncement : 8/7 Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nos.06 to 12/CTK/2018) 2009 to 2014-15 -2, Respondent) /CTK/2021 IT(ss)A Nos.13 to 18/CTK/2018) and ITA No. 34/CTK/2018 2009 to 2014-15 -2, Respondent) M.A.Nos.21 to 27/CTK/2021 IT(ss)A Nos.19 to 25/CTK/2018) 2009 to 2014-15 -2, Respondent) B.Panda, Sr Adv & Shri B.Panda, AR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 7/ 2022 7/2022 Page2 | 4 O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM These are miscellaneous applications filed by the assesses against the consolidated order dated 1.10.2019 of the Tribunal in IT(ss) A Nos.06 to 12, IT(ss) A Nos.13 to 18/CTK/2018 and ITA No.34/CTK/18 and IT(ss) A Nos.19 to 25/CTK/2018 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15. 2. Shri B.Panda, Sr. Advocate and Shri B.Panda, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C. Mohanty, ld Sr Dr appeared for the revenue. 3. At the time of hearing, it was informed to Sr. counsel that M.As are filed belatedly by 368 days. It was submitted by Sr counsel that the Limitation Act and Limitation under both the Special and General Laws had been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order in Suo moto W.P. (C) No.3 of 2020. Initially, the stay was operational from 15.3.2000 to 14.3.2021. It was subsequently, again restored and extended from 10.1.2022 to 28.2.2022. It was the submission that if this period is excluded, there would be no delay. We find substance in the arguments of ld Sr counsel for the assessee. If the period during which Hon’ble Supreme Court had stayed the Limitation is excluded then M.As filed by the assessee are within time. This being so, the M.As. filed by the assessee are taken up for hearing on merits. 4. Ld Sr counsel submitted that he wants to file written submission and wants time. At this point of time, he was informed that the M.As having been posted for hearing, it should have been filed today. Ld counsel for the assessee is not in a position to substantiate the claim in the M.As. Ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the Tribunal. It was his submission that there is no mistake apparent from the order of the Tribunal has been pointed out. Page3 | 4 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of the M.As filed by the assesses show that the assessee is challenging the estimation of profit as done by the Tribunal. It must be mentioned that even in the M.As, the assessee has categorically admitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had left the matter of the percentage of profit to the discretion of the Tribunal. However, the maximum limit was fixed at 2%. The Tribunal has followed the order of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Orissa and has restricted the net profit to the maximum limit fixed by the Hon’ble High Court at 2%. No error in the order of the Tribunal has been specifically pointed out by the assessee. This being so, as no mistake apparent from the order of the Tribunal having been pointed out by the Sr counsel, the M.As filed by the assessee stand dismissed. 6. In the result, M.As filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 8/7/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 8/7/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Page4 | 4