Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar

Sh. Mohd Saleem Mir, Anantnag vs Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Anantnag on 12 August, 2022

                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
                                (VIRTUAL COURT)
           BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
           AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                             I.T.A. No. 113/Asr/2019
                            Assessment Year: 2010-11


        Sh. Mohd. Saleem Mir,           V.   Income Tax Officer,
        Prop. M/s Shalimar                   Ward-3(4), Anantnag
        Engineering Works,
        Nai Basti, Anantnag,
        Kashmir                                       (Respendent)
        [PAN: ATZPM 1762H]
             (Appellant)


           Appellant by         Sh. M.A. Mir, Cost Accountant
           Respondent by        Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

                  Date of Hearing      : 08.08.2022
          Date of Pronouncement        : 12.08.2022

                                  ORDER

Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar dated 08.10.2018 in respect of AY 2010-11.

2 ITA No.113/Asr/2019

Mohd. Saleem Mir v. ITO

2. At the time hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the assessee is a civil contractor who is declaring a GP rate of 7.46%. However, the ld. CIT(A) has adopted the GP rate of 8% as against 10% applied by the Assessing Officer relying on the different case laws as per the impugned order. When the AR was asked to justify the claim of G.P. rate of 7.46% shown appellant as against the application of the 8% GP rate by the ld. CIT(A) in terms of trading results as per the past history of the assessee's own case or similar case of a civil contractor on parity of facts, he could not file any documentary evidence to substantiate in rebuttal to application of gross rate of 8% by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the counsel, in the virtual hearing before the bench stated that he is not willing to carry out such exhaustive exercises of collecting documentary evidences to substantiate such a claim and rather wish to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, he prayed to withdraw the appeal.

3. The Ld. D.R. has no objection to the assessee's request for the withdrawal of the appeal during the course of virtual hearing. 3 ITA No.113/Asr/2019

Mohd. Saleem Mir v. ITO

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2022 Sd/- Sd/-

        (Anikesh Banerjee)                        (Dr. M. L. Meena)
         Judicial Member                         Accountant Member

*GP/Sr./P.S.*
Copy of the order forwarded to:

     (1)The Appellant
     (2) The Respondent
     (3) The CIT
     (4) The CIT (Appeals)
     (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.

                           True Copy

                                   By Order