Itta/68/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi v. M.ashok Reddy

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.Nos.21, 23, 31, 32, 36, 42, 48,66, 68 and 70 of 2013 Date: 23-07-2013 I.T.T.A.No.21 of 2013: Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-VIHyderabad. … Appellant And 1.Sri Kamlekar Shankar LalProprietor, M/s. Sai Kishan Wines, H.No.1-8-63/B, Main Road, Suryapet – 508 213. … Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.Nos.21, 23, 31, 32, 36, 42, 48, 66, 68 and 70 of 2013 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) These appeals are directed against the common judgmentand order of the learned Tribunal dated 13-04-2012 inI.T.A.No.2191/Hyd/2011 and batch, in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue was in appeal before the AppellateTribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeals considering theissue involved whether the estimation of profit arrived at by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was proper or not. 3. The rate of estimation of profit is always discretionary. On consideration of the fact, sometimes the profit is estimated at 5%and sometimes it is estimated at 3%. It depends upon theappreciation of each and every fact of every individual case. Whenthe Tribunal has exercised discretion while estimating the profit at3%, this Court should not interfere with such discretion, as it is notthe ground that the exercise of discretion is absolutely arbitrary. It istrue that the Tribunal has relied on its earlier decision, in case of M/s. Kanaka Durga Wines in I.T.A.No.591/Hyd/2011, dated 28-07-2011. But the decision itself does not appear to be absurd. Therefore, we do not find any element of law involved in thesematters. 4. The Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. There will beno order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 23-07-2013YCR _________________ K.C. BHANU, J