Itta/392/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S.p.l.reddy And Co

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.392 OF 2015 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This Appeal, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’), is preferred against the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) inI.T.A. No.1314/Hyd/2013 dated 16.05.2014. The Appeal before the Tribunal was preferred, by the Revenue,against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), setting-aside the order passed by the Assessing Authorityfor the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 on the ground that theassessee had failed to produce the bills and vouchers maintained bythem in support of the books of accounts, and that their profits must beestimated at 12.5% of the gross receipts. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee carried the matter in Appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) faulted the AssessingOfficer in rejecting the books of accounts, and observed that there wasno justification for rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee.The Assessing Officer was directed to accept the admitted books ofaccounts of the assessee. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue carried the matter in Appeal tothe Tribunal. In the order under Appeal before us, the Tribunalobserved that, when books of accounts were not verifiable, theAssessing Officer had no option but to reject the books of accounts;and the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had nomerit, as the assessee had failed to produce the requisite bills and vouchers in support of his claim. The Tribunal noted the contention,urged on behalf of the assessee, that they were in a position toproduce all the bills and vouchers, if the assessee was given one moreopportunity as the same were not available at the time of assessmentproceedings for the reason that they were maintained at differentplaces at Hyderabad and Tirupati etc; and, considering this plea of theassessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had remittedthe matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one moreopportunity to the assessee to produce the bills and vouchers for allthe three years under consideration. The Tribunal held that, if theassessee produced all the requisite bills and vouchers in support ofhis claim, then the Assessing Authority should determine theassessment in accordance with law, and on the basis of the books ofaccounts; if, on the other hand, the assessee failed to utilize theopportunity, and used any delaying tactics, the Assessing Officer wasat liberty to estimate the income of the assessee followed the decisionof the Tribunal in C. Eswar Reddy (Order of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.668 of 2009 and batch, dated 31.01.2011). All that the Tribunal has done, in the order under Appeal beforeus, is to remit the matter to the Assessing Authority to verify the booksof accounts and documents, if any, placed by the assessee. Whiledoing so, the Tribunal made it clear that, in case the assessee failed todo so, then it was open to the Assessing Officer to estimate the incomeof the assessee based on its earlier order in C. Eswar Reddy. TheAppeals preferred against the order passed by the Tribunal, in thecase of C. Eswar Reddyi.e., in I.T.T.A Nos.455 of 2015 and batch,were dismissed by this Court on 22.11.2015. We are satisfied that no question of law, much less a substantialquestion of law, arises for consideration in this Appeal filed by theRevenue against the order of remand passed by the Income-TaxAppellate Tribunal. The Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thisAppeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J _____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Date: 22-12-2015.Dsh HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND We are satisfied that no question of law, much less a substantialquestion of law, arises for consideration in this Appeal filed by theRevenue against the order of remand passed by the Income-TaxAppellate Tribunal. The Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thisAppeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J _____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Date: 22-12-2015.Dsh HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 86 18012016 INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.392 OF 2015 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered byHon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) DSH Date. 22-12-2015