TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure as per the provisions of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer is allowed to make additions for want of evidences and the same should be fair and reasonable. Assessing Officer should avoid multiple additions on any account. We find the reassessments under consideration are prima facie unreasonable and unsustainable in the present forum. For example, the Assessing Officer cannot estimate profits of the hotel business on one side and also add entire business expenditure on the other. Considering the same, we are of the view that the matters on the merits of additions on both assessment years should be remanded to the Assessing Officer’s file for fresh reassessment with the following directions. (1) The Assessing Officer shall gather data needed for GP/NP estimation from the comparable hotel industries from the comparable location/area/town and if necessary, resort to estimation provided, the books of account fail to meet the requirement of the law and if they are any way to be rejected; (2) Once estimation of GP/NP is done, Assessing Officer shall not add the expenditure claimed in the profit and loss account; (3) Assessing Officer shall allow the statutory deductions if any, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities to make such disallowance. The above grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be altered, amended, modified etc in the interest of natural justice. 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the assessee and the issues raised in appeal are that the assessee is engaged in business of running hotel at Nashik and Goa. The assessee did not file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response, there is no compliance by the assessee for the said notice. Letters dated 25.08.2011, 30.12.2011, 21.02.2012 and 31.05.2012 were issued one after the other. However, the response from the assessee was not appreciable one. Eventually, the assessee responded only to ask for some more time to file the Return of Income, documents, details etc. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued series of letters dated 18.06.2012, 30.11.2012 etc. Eventually, the assessee filed return of income on 22nd March, 2013 claiming loss. During scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(2) r.w.s 148 of the Act, the assessee was asked to produce details of documents, accounts and other evidences in support of claim in the return of loss. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is reproduced as under:- 2.1.12 During the appellate proceedings, the Appellant has furnished copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts filed by the Directors and Chartered Accountant along with the letter dated 12.11.2013. However, in addition to these documents, the Appellant has not furnished any other details . 2.1.13 During the hearing held on 05.03.2015, the learned Authorized Representative of the Appellant- Shri Ajay Nagdev, CA was asked to furnish all the details in support of the Appellant's Grounds of Appeal, which could be forwarded to the learned AO for the verification and comments as the Appellant has not furnished before the learned AO any information in support of the income declared by it in the return of income. However, the Appellant has not furnished any details so far. As stated above, the Appellant has been granted number of opportunities to prosecute its own appeal. However, the Appellant has chosen not to avail the opportunities provided by my predecessor and me . 2.1.14 The Appellant has merely furnished the profit and loss account, balance sheet and statement of computation of total income. However, these documents are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss. The Appellant has neither filed Original return, nor filed return u/s 148 in time after it was provided many opportunities, nor did produce books of accounts before the learned AO. The Appellant has followed same approach even during the appellate proceedings. It is settled that law favours vigilant and not indolent. Therefore, the Appellant's case cannot be considered on sympathetic grounds. 2.1.18 In absence of any material to decide any Ground of Appeal in favour of the Appellant and in view of the above discussion, I confirm the total income assessed by the learned AO for all three assessment years. Accordingly, additions made of ₹ 4,92,05,599 for AY 2009-10, ₹ 6,18,23,291 for AY 2010-11 and of ₹ 19,46,91,052 [( 8,71,24,405 + 21,08,52,079 + 2,57,37,151) -12,90,22,583] for AY 2011-12 are confirmed. 6. Aggrieved with the above order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for both the appeals of both assessment years, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal with the grounds extracted above. As per procedure laid down, the Tribunal issued preliminary notice and posted the case for hearing on 21.06.2017. The notice was issued w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te opportunity of the Commissioner of Income (Appeals), we are of the view that the said ground is not supported by any evidence. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted a number of opportunities as detailed above for both the appeals and decided the case of the assessee. Therefore, the ground No. 2 is also dismissed. 9. Regarding the rejecting of claim of loss, ad-hoc estimation of ₹ 10 Lakhs for assessment year 2009-10 and ₹ 15 Lakhs for assessment year 2010-11 and further addition of ₹ 4,92,05,599/- for assessment year 2009-10 and ₹ 6,18,23,291/- for assessment year 2010-11, we find that the Assessing Officer/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are extremely unfair in making the aforesaid additions. They are in the nature of making double taxation of same income. Normally, when the GP or income is estimation, no separate disallowance out of expenses is warranted. Further, the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer after rejecting the book, results should be fair and reasonable, more so, when the exparte or ad-hoc additions are involved. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee conducted the hotel business during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
