The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Amol D. Gawaskar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2009 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Amol D. Gawaskar ... Respondent Mr. R. Ashokan for the Appellant. None for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &R.S. MOHITE, JJ. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 12, 2009 DATED: MARCH 12, 2009 DATED: MARCH 12, 2009 P.C. P.C. . The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the I.T.A.T. for three assessment years. In an appeal before the C.I.T. (A), it was the contention of the assessee that the A.O. had assessed the tax based on gross receipts without allowing any deduction on account of expenses. The assessee had brought to the notice of the A.O. that he was incurring expenditure on account of freight charges as well as sub commission and administration charges. Since his records were impounded by the C.B.I. no details could be produced by him. The assessee was in the business as clearing & forwarding agent. Considering the nature of the business carried on and that the expenditure will have to be incurred, the C.I.T. (A) assessed the appellants’ net profit at 4% of the gross receipts received for each of the years under consideration. . The revenue aggrieved preferred an appeal before the I.T.A.T. The learned tribunal noted that it is implicit in the concept of best judgment assessment that the A.O. should give his reasons for arriving at a particular figure of income. The tribunal has felt that the A.O. has given no basis for estimation of income and that no material on record to suggest that the gross amounts taxed by him were in the nature of income and not in the nature of gross receipts. For the aforesaid reasons, the I.T.A.T. upheld the order of C.I.T. (A). . We find no reason to differ with the view taken by the tribunal in confirming the order of the C.I.T. (A). Considering the above, the question as framed would not arise and consequently appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)