B. R. Lubricants v. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee-firm derives income from the business of Lubricants on a wholesale basis. The assessee did not file its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.23,30,800/- in its Bank account during the demonetization period. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring the assessee to file its return of income. Since there was no compliance, the Assessing Officer made an assessment based on best judgment under section 144 of the Act and added Rs.23,30,800/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act, treating the same as unexplained money. The AO also estimated the turnover of the assessee during the financial year 2016-17 at Rs.6,59,62,252/- and added Rs.52,76,980/- as estimated profit @8% under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice.
• 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.
• 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.23,03,800/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of Income-tax Act.
• 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of estimated profit of Rs.52,76,980/- u/s 44AD of Income-tax Act at 8% of Rs.6,59,62,252/- against actual NP ratio of the industry.
• 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order which is contrary to the facts and law.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• ITA No.1332/Del/2020

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Dismissed

• JPR Balaji Infra Private Limited Vs DCIT

• Krunal Hasmukhbhai Kiri vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

  Surat bench

• Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Chaudhary Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Mr. Suresh Laxman Padhye vs. The I.T.O. – 26(3)(3)

  Mumbai bench

• Sachidanand Rai vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench