2022 (6) TMI 578 - Income Tax

Head Note / Extract:
Rejection of books of accounts - estimating gross profit @ 3% against gross profit of 0.81% shown by the assessee - HELD THAT:- So far as estimation of profit by assessing officer we find that the assessee has not filed any document or evidence that the estimation by ld CIT(A) is not justify or the profit margin in the line of business of assessee is not more than the profit shown by the assessee. The assessee has not file a single document to substantiate his working of profit or comparable instances in the region cum industry. The assessee claimed that fire took place in the factory of the assessee, not a single piece of evidence in the form of report from fire department or from Police station was filed. Thus, in absence of any evidence to substantiate the books profit, we do not find any reason to disturb the estimation of profit estimated by assessing officer. in the result the assessee gets part relief as we affirm the estimation of profit estimated by assessing officer. In the result, ground No. 2 &3 are partly allowed. Jurisdiction of AO - We find that the ITO, Ward-1, Vapi/Assessing Officer assumed the jurisdiction on the basis of valid transfer order issued by the CCIT, Surat dated 23/07/2012 passed under section 127 of Income Tax Act. Notice issued u/s 143(2) by the ACIT, Vapi Circle for initiating the assessment in the present case - In Jindal SteeHRI SATISH KUMAR SINHA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 (1) HYDERABAD [2021 (9) TMI 174 - ITAT HYDERABAD] there was no order from Commissioner of Income Tax for conferring power on JCIT to exercise jurisdiction and no order for transferring the case from one assessing officer to other officer. In ITO Vs NVS Builder [2018 (4) TMI 381 - ITAT DELHI] first notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO Faridabad on 23.10.2007, who was not the assessing officer having no jurisdiction of assessee in that case. The assessee informed the assessing officer that he has filed return of income at Delhi, then ITO ward- 10(1) New Delhi issued notice under section 143(2) on 23.07.2008 which was beyond the statutory period. In Cosmat Trader Pvt Ltd Vs ITO [2021 (4) TMI 1020 - ITAT KOLKATA] the jurisdiction over the assessee was of ITO-ward -7(1) Kolkata and notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO-ward-6(1) Kolkata, who has no jurisdiction over the assessee. Finally, in Harvinder Singh Jaggi [2016 (3) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI] no order under section 127 was passed by CIT for transferring case to assessing officer/ Add CIT. Thus, facts of all the case laws cited by ld AR for the assessee is not help full to him. Therefore, additional ground of appeal being ground no. 9 to 11 is also dismissed.