I.T.A. No. 630/AHD/2010, (Assessment Year: 1998-1999). Case: Gujarat Transport Services Vs The A.C.I.T.. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberI.T.A. No. 630/AHD/2010, (Assessment Year: 1998-1999)
CounselFor Appellant: M.K. Patel, A.R. and A.R. Shah and For Respondents: Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R.
JudgesG.C. Gupta, Vice President and Anil Chaturvedi, Member (A)
IssueIncome Tax Act
Judgement DateAugust 07, 2014
CourtITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)


Anil Chaturvedi, Member (A), (ITAT Ahmedabad 'D' Bench)

  1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-V, Baroda dated 16.12.2009 for A.Y. 1998-99.

  2. The facts as culled out from the material on record are as under.

  3. Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of transportation. Assessee file its return of income for A.Y. 98-99 on 31.10.98 showing total income of Rs. 2,40,637/-. Assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 2.03.2001 and the total income was determined at Rs. 55,01,680/-. While framing the assessment A.O. estimated gross profit at 18% of the gross receipts received from KRIBCO and made addition of Rs. 50,92,838/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O. Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who reduced the estimation of gross profit from 18% to 3% and thus the addition on account of gross profit was reduced to Rs. 8,48,806/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee as well as Revenue preferred appeal before Tribunal where both the appeals were dismissed. On the addition of Rs. 8,48,806/- which was confirmed by CIT(A), A.O. vide penalty order dated 29.06.2009 levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,97,100/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O. Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by holding as under:-

    4.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant, the assessment and penalty order and the quantum appeal orders of CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT. It is noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO had recorded the statement of Shri Jayantilal Patni, Managing Partner who admitted in reply to Q. No. 21 that certain expenses were bogus. Further, in reply to Q. No. 19, it was stated that certain payment for hiring trucks were also bogus payments. In regard to Q. No. 13, the assessee admitted that certain Bhada Chitties were fictitiously signed assessee's own men. It was also admitted before the AO that certain expenses were debited which pertained to the earlier period. On these facts, the CIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT confirmed the GP addition to the extent of Rs. 5,01,627/-. It was the specific admission of the partner in regard to claim of various bogus expenses that the income was estimated and this fact was also recognized by the higher appellate authority. In the case of CIT vs. T Mathai 269 ITR 492 (Kerala) and CIT vs. Shakuntaladevi 270 ITR 590 (Rajasthan) the penalty on...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT