Meenakshisundaram Balamurugan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dindigul

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Meenakshisundaram Balamurugan, made cash withdrawals and deposits but did not file his return of income. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee disclosed total sales and net profit in his response to the notice. The Assessing Officer estimated the profit at 8% of the turnover and added it to the total income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition. The assessee appealed against this estimation and the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act for not filing the audit report within the stipulated period.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the estimation of net profit @ 8% of the turnover for AY 2017-18.
• 2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the estimation of net profit @ 8% of the turnover for AY 2018-19.
• 3. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act for AY 2018-19.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jalpaiguri

• Shri Moorthy Ramasubramanian v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirunelveli

• Kasturi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Income Tax Officer Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2021-22Dismissed

• Late Nammalvar, Rep. by Smt. Padma Nammallvar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tiruvarur

• Ripan Halder vs. Income Tax Officer

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2016-17Allowed