Ramulu Manthri , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad

MA 3/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5062 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Deduction Disallowance
• Section: 80C; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ B ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. Nos.3 & 4/Hyd/2022 (In ITA Nos.595 & 596/Hyd/2019) (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ramulu Manthri, Hyderabad. PAN AKDPM 3297L .....Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(4), Hyderabad. .....Respondent. Appellant By : Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. Respondents By : Shri Rohit Majumdar (DR) Date of Hearing : 04.03.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022. O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, J.M.(Oral) : These assessee's twin Miscellaneous Applications filed u/s. 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) seek to recall the tribunal’s common order dt.16.11.2021 affirming the learned lower authorities action estimating 5% profit element in retail liquor sale business followed by 80C deduction disallowance of Rs.35,000; respectively. 2 MA Nos.3 & 4/Hyd/2022 Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. Learned counsel stated at the outset that the assessee could not appear on the date of hearing in the corresponding main appeals on account of circumstances beyond his control and therefore, we need to recall our impugned order(s). His next plea on merits is that the tribunal has erred in law in upholding the impugned estimation of profits in retail liquor sale business as various judicial precedents have restricted the same to that @ 2 to 3% only. We find merit in the assessee's foregoing technical arguments that he would have indeed been prevented to appear and assist us due to Covid-19 outbreak. The fact however remains that even if we recall our impugned order(s), the same would have no effect on the impugned estimation in liquor sales business as it has been made clear therein that this kind of guesswork hardly forms a judicial precedent in light of CIT Vs. B.R. constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Therefore, we call our impugned 3 MA Nos.3 & 4/Hyd/2022 order dt.16.11.2021 to the limited extent and reaffirm our finding on merits therein. Learned authorized representative is fair enough in not raising any issue regarding 80C deduction(s). 3. To sum up, these assessee's miscellaneous application Nos.3 & 4/Hyd/2022 are allowed but the corresponding main appeal ITA Nos.595 & 596/Hyd/2019 shall continue to be dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th Mar., 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 07.03.2022. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Shri Ramulu Manthri, H.No.1-9-259/1, Kushaiguda Bus Stand, Kapra (M), Kushaiguda, Hyderabad. 2. ITO, Ward 15(4), Hyderabad. 3. C I T(A)-7, Hyderabad. 4. Pr.CIT-7, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.