Petition filed involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 535/H/2019
Assessment Year: 2009-10

Kamala Shiva Kumar,
Secunderabad.
PAN – APKPK 1463 N
(Appellants) 

Vs. 

Income-tax Officer,
Ward – 10(3),
Hyderabad.
(Respondent)

Assessee by: None
Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Date of hearing: 16/03/2021
Date of pronouncement: 03/05/2021

O R D E R

PER L.P. Sahu, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is directed against the CIT(A) - 6, Hyderabad’s order, dated 12/01/2018 involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”.

2. We notice at the outset that assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 353 days delay in filing. To this effect, the assessee filed petition for condonation of the said delay therein, inter-alia that due to the ill health during the relevant period, caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 December, 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay of 353 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee, in the business of wholesale trade in electrical goods in the name of M/s Sri Trinetra Electricals, filed his return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 30/09/2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,35,670/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, under CASS. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO notice from the 26AS statement that the assessee had received contract receipts amounting to Rs. 1,88,78,974/-, which was not admitted by him in the P&L Account enclosed to the return of income filed. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish the reasons for not reflecting the said receipts as income, against which, the assessee vide letter dated 23/12/2011 submitted its reply, which was extracted by the AO in his order at pages 1 & 2.

3.1 The AO rejected the submissions of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not substantiated any of his contentions stated in his letter with supporting evidence and did not furnish the details like names and addresses of the persons alleged to have carried on the contract works in the name of the assessee. Rejecting the request of the assessee to estimate profit at 5% of the contract receipts, the AO estimated the assessee’s income at 12.5% of the total contract receipts of Rs.1,88,78,974/- which worked out to Rs. 23,59,872/-.

3.2 When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the net profit at 8% of the contractual receipts. 

To know more in details find the attachment file