Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dcit 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs United Asphalters P. Ltd, Mumbai on 6 December, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई यायपीठ, 'सी' ,मुंबई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, 'C' MUMBAI ी जो ग दर संह, या यक सद य एवं ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद य, के सम Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No.1823/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-13(1)(2), M/s United Asphalters Pvt. 02nd Floor, Room No.225, बनाम/ Ltd.
Aayakar Bhavan, 3-A/6, Majitha Nagar,
M.K. Road, Vs. S.V. Road, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400067
(राज व /Revenue) ( यथ" /Respondent)
PAN. No.AAACU4547K
नधा%&रती क ओर से / Assessee by Shri Dharmesh Shah राज व क ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal-DR Corrigendum We find that the Tribunal disposed off the aforesaid appeal of the Revenue vide order dated 06/07/2017. During hearing of the remaining appeals of difference Assessment Years including Assessment Years 2009-10, 2 ITA No. 1 8 2 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 6 M/s. United Asphalters P. Ltd.
(appeal of the assessee), the ld. counsel for the assessee cited order of the Tribunal dated 06/07/2017, wherein an inadvertent typographical error was noticed. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Dharmesh Shah as well as Shri Rajat Mittal, ld. DR, agreed that the mistake may be rectified. Both were heard. After hearing both sides, it was found that due to inadvertent typographical error, some mistake occurred in the order in para 2.12 (page-16 of the order), which is reproduced hereunder:-
"2.12. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, admittedly, in such type of cases, there is no option but to estimate the profit which depends upon the subjective approach of an individual. However, keeping in view the principle of judicial discipline, ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases (discussed hereinabove), to plug the leakage of revenue, we deem it appropriate to adopt the net profit of 12.50% of the purchases made by the assessee minus the GP, already declared/ shown by the assessee. So far as, the case relied upon by Ld. DR in his written submissions is concerned, that is different on fact as the present assessee is a trader in goods, thus, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)."3 ITA No. 1 8 2 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 6
M/s. United Asphalters P. Ltd.
We note that (on going through the record) the Tribunal adopted the net profit at 12.50% of the purchases made by the assessee minus the GP already declared/shown by the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) adopted the figure of 12.50% and the Tribunal affirmed the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). However, if the profit at the rate of 12.50% of the bogus purchases is affirmed then there is no question of minus the GP already declared by the assessee, therefore, the necessary correction is made and the para 2.12 may be read as under:-
"2.12. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, admittedly, in such type of cases, there is no option but to estimate the profit which depends upon the subjective approach of an individual. However, keeping in view the principle of judicial discipline, ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases (discussed hereinabove), to plug the leakage of revenue, we deem it appropriate to adopt the net profit of 12.50% of the purchases, adopted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). So far as, the case relied upon by Ld. DR in his written submissions is concerned, that is different on fact as the present assessee is a trader 4 ITA No. 1 8 2 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 6 M/s. United Asphalters P. Ltd.
in goods, thus, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)."
The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to act upon the corrigendum order issued hereinabove. This correction/corrigendum was told to the ld. representatives from both sides and they agreed to it. Thus, this corrigendum is issued today on 06/12/2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajesh Kumar) (Joginder Singh)
लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या#यक सद"य /JUDICIAL MEMBER
मब
ुं ई Mumbai; *दनांक Dated : 06/12/2017 f{x~{tÜ? P.S //. न.स आदे श क %#त'ल(प अ)े(षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant (Respective assessee)
2. यथ" / The Assessee.
3. आयकर आय/ ु त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आय/ ु त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai,
5. 1वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील3य अ धकरण, मब ंु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड% फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स या1पत त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई / ITAT, Mumbai