TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and find that in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-XII vs. Subodh Gupta [ 2014 (12) TMI 479 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that in absence of material to show net profit rate, presumptive net profit rate of 8% as stipulated in section 44AD could be taken for estimation of income. Hence, considering all direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the extent of 8% and re-compute the assessment in terms of above condition. In further direct the assessing officer that in case no set off of TDS is given in response to the original return of income the assessee be granted set off of TDS in the credit of assessee. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.271/SRT/2022 - - - Dated:- 29-12-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Krinjal Bhuta, C.A For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC for short) /Ld.CIT(A)] dated 26.11.2021 for assessment year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) passed impugned order on26.11.2021, however, present appeal was filed by assessee before Tribunal on 20.09.2022, the registry has calculated delay of 42 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed his affidavit for condoning such delay. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that the order of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) was not received by assessee and the assessee was not aware about passing of said impugned order though the assessee has given e-mail portal in Form-35 (Appeal Form before Ld. CIT(A)) of his ex-employer, if any, about sending order was not communicated to assessee s e-mail portal. The assessee received demand notice on 01.06.2022 as well as penalty notice of 10.06.2022 and came to know that appeal of assessee has been dismissed. Thus, the period of limitation is to be counted from June 2022. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that the assessee is a layman and earned very meagre income. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee has a good case on merit and would suffer prejudice if the delay in filing of assessee s appeal is not condone. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that there is no deliberate delay i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and on the basis of statement reflected in Form 26AS about contractual payments of Rs.8,96,080/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of entire sum. 7. Aggrieved by the addition in the assessment order passed on 29.09.2017, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was migrated to NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed written submission along with documents while filing his appeal. In the written submission, the assessee stated that during the year under consideration, the assessee stated that during the year under consideration, the received gross receipt to the tune of Rs.8,96,080/- from Paras Pumps Private Limited, though assessee filed his return of income and he has filed his return manually on 05.11.2022 in the office of Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Vapi, copy of acknowledgement was provided. The case was re-opened solely on the reasons that assessee has not filed his return of income and notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2017. The addition was made by Assessing Officer for the want of compliance and entire contractual receipts was added to the income of the assessee, which is once again added to the total income of assessee. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ib.)/[2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune-Trib.)[15-07- 2013] Commissioner of Income-tax-XII vs. Subodh Gupta [2015] 54 taxmann.com 343 (Delhi)/[2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Del)[09-12-2014] Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)* [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom)/[2016] 240 Taxman 133 (Bom)/[2017] 297 CETR 614 (Bom)[25-04-2016] Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [TS-5019-SC-1978-O], (1978) CTR (SC) 0134,(1978) 115 ITR 0524 Civil Appeals No. 1701 to 1703 of 1974 dated 06.10.1978 11. Ld. AR for the assessee submits that if assessee has already offered 12.5%of income against total contractual receipt while filing his return of income. Thus no addition is liable to be sustained. 12. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee failed to file copy of acknowledgement of return of income as claimed by Ld. AR of the assessee either before Assessing Officer for assessment proceedings or before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). The NFAC/Lt. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in absence of any evidence. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that order of lower authorities may be sustained. 13. I have considered the rival submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
