SILVER STAR ENGINEERS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench passed in ITA 58/C/1998, dt. 28th May, 2002 (Annexure -D) and the order in MP No. 35/C/2002, dt. 13th Sept., 2002, (Annexure -F).

(2.) THE appellant -assessee is a partnership firm which has dealership in Yamaha motor cycles and spare parts. The assessment of the firm for the year 1991 -92 was completed under Section 144 of the IT Act, 1961. Since the appellant has not maintained any accounts nor furnished any details regarding the transactions, the AO has noted that the gross profit at the rate of 4 per cent shown by the appellant cannot be accepted. The AO had adopted 15 per cent as gross profit which according to him is the normal profit in this line of business. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said order, filed appeal before the CIT(A), Thiruvananthapuram. Though the case was posted on several occasions appellant applied for adjournments. On many occasions the request for adjournments were granted. The appellate authority noted that the appellant had not engaged any authorised representative for the conduct of the case and that the appellant is doing business at Thiruvananthapuram and therefore nothing prevented the appellant from making personal appearance at least to present the detailed reason for not attending the case. In the above circumstances the first appellate authority disposed of the appeal on merits. The first appellate authority noted that the ground taken in the appeal is wrong and logical (illogical). It was observed that the appellant has not produced any material to substantiate his claim in spite of several opportunities were granted. The appellant filed second appeal before the Tribunal along with a petition for condonation of delay. There also the assessee had sought for adjournment of the case on many occasions. The Tribunal has noted that though the first appellate authority had granted so many adjournments even on the last adjourned date the appellant did not appear. The Tribunal further noted that the appeal before the Tribunal itself was posted on so many occasions but the appellant had not appeared on any one of the occasions except to file application for adjournment. It is in these circumstances the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on 28th May, 2002, by stating that there is a delay of six days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but the assessee has not explained the cause of delay to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant submits that there was a delay of only six days in filing the appeal and that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee has not maintained any books of accounts, stock register, etc., and there was no material on record to show that the gross profit of 4 per cent shown by the appellant represent the true position. It is on those circumstances, the AO has taken the view that the normal gross profit in this line of business is 15 per cent which is adopted for completing the assessment. Though an appeal was filed before the first appellate authority the assessee has not chosen to produce any documents to show that the profit in the business is only less than 5 per cent. Neither the assessee nor any authorised representative appeared before the appellate authority at least on one occasion though the hearing of the appeal was adjourned on so many occasions. The Tribunal after considering all the aspects took the view that the appellant had not satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay of six days. We find that the assessing authority and the first appellate authority had clearly stated that the assessee had not produced any material whatsoever to show that the gross profit on motor vehicle is only less than 5 per cent. In these circumstances, even if the matter is remanded before the Tribunal for further consideration of the appeal no useful purpose will be served. In the circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.The IT appeal is accordingly dismissed.