REKHA MANOJ JAJODIA,AKOLA V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AKOLA

ITA 169/NAG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Rekha Manoj Jajodia, the appellant, who challenged the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was against the ex-parte assessment made by the Assessing Officer, who estimated the gross profit at 8% of total receipts amounting to Rs. 43,85,572, resulting in an addition of Rs. 3,50,845 to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, noting the assessee's failure to respond to notices and the reliance on the service tax returns filed by the assessee firm. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of response from the assessee and the validity of the assessment based on the available service tax return data.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474269 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.169/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Rekha Manoj Jajodia Prasad Colony, Jathar Peth Akola 444 001 PAN – AEEPJ8963M ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–2, Akola ……………. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 04/12/2024 Date of Order – 20/12/2024 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 03/05/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1] Learned CIT(A), NFC, Delhi erred in dismissing Assessee's Appeal without applying his mind and dismissing Appeal is bad in law. 2] Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not properly consider Assessee's various submissions and supporting documents. 3] Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not properly applying his mind and merely relying in A.O.'s order and his finding. 2 Rekha Manoj Jajodia 4] Learned A.O. erred in computing the income amounting to Rs.3,50,845/- i.e. 8% of the total receipts is bad in law. 5] Appellant craves to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing, if necessary.” 3. In this case, the assessee did not file its return of income for the year under consideration. The case was re–opened under section 148 of the Act and statutory notices were issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply. The Assessing Officer completed assessment ex–parte by making addition on account of estimated gross profit @8% of ` 43,85,572, which comes to ` 3,50,845. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) elaborately discussed the issue while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are reproduced below:– “6. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, e–response made by the appellant, remand report furnished by the A.O. and rejoinder of the appellant and find that the appellant did not respond to the notices issued by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. Assessment was framed at an income of ` 3,50,845 under section 144 of the Act. 6.1 The following facts emerge from the records:- In this case, the information was available with the department that the assessee firm has filed its Service Tax Return for F.Y. 2014-15 in which the assessee firm has shown it's receipts at 43,85,572/-. The assessee firm has not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 (relevant to A.Y. 2014-15). Therefore, a letter for filing of return of income was issued on 07.03.2017. It is also to mention here that the assessee has not filed her return of income in individual capacity also and the receipts can't be verified therefrom. Further, if the partnership firm was dissolved, then assessee should not have filed the service tax return of the partnership firm. The assesse has been unable to rebut the above facts which remain uncontroverted. 6.2 In view of the above position, the A.O. has rightly computed the income in the capacity of the firm based on service tax return at Rs.3,50,845/- i.e. 8% of the total receipts of Rs.43,85,572/-. Thus, I am inclined to sustain the order of the A.O, hence the ground of appeal is dismissed.” 3 Rekha Manoj Jajodia 5. I have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material available on record and order of the authorities below. The firm is dissolved, hence it has to be taxed in the hands of the individual. The case of the assessee is that the firm is dissolved and, therefore, it cannot be taxed in the hands of the firm. The learned CIT(A) has noted that the assessee firm has filed a copy of payment of service tax for the F.Y. 2014–15, in which the assessee firm’s receipts have been shown at ` 43,85,572. The assessee firm has not filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015–16 and, therefore, a letter for filing of return of income was issued on 07/03/2017. In this letter, it is also mentioned that the assessee has not filed return of income in the capacity of “Individual”. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is hereby upheld by dismissing the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/12/2024 NAGPUR, DATED: 20/12/2024 Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "