IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HON’BLE , AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 890 & 891/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s Shreyas Wines, At Post Nachanwell, Tq.: Kannad, Aurangabad-431101.

PAN: ABCFS3729H. . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Shivam Jaiswal [‘Ld. AR’]

Revenue by : Mr Umesh Phade [

‘Ld. DR’]

Date of conclusive Hearing : 01/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2024

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM;

These twin appeals instituted u/s 253(1)(a) of the Act by the assessee are assailed against separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre

1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter]

NFAC ] which in turn arisen out of orders of assessment [‘ ’ hereinafter passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Aurangabad AO for assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-

[‘ ’ hereinafter]

18 .

[‘AY’ hereinafter]

2. Since facts and substantive issue arising in these twin appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, for the sake of succinctness these appeals are heard together for consolidated & common order.

3. Tersely stated the facts of the case are that;

3.1 The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in retail trading business of Foreign & Country Liquor. The return of income filed by the assessee declaring total income of 2,85,170/- & 2,60,320/-for the AY ₹ ₹

2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively were by service of separate statutory notices selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.

3.2 In the event of assessee’s failure to produce stock records and evidential documents in support of NIL closing stocks held and profit claimed to have been earned by it, the Ld. AO rejected the books of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act and estimated the gross profit [‘GP’

hereinafter] to the best of his judgement @8% of total turnover as issued by the reported in the tax audit report [‘TAR’ hereinafter]

Chartered Accountant and accordingly framed the assessments. Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully contested the rejection of books and determination of profit on estimation/presumptive basis in separate appeals before the first appellate authority. Failing to which the assessee firm filed these two appeals on the common grounds numbered from A to D. Since these grounds are vague, argumentative in nature and inconsonance with the rule 8 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, ], hence deemed unfit for their 1963 [‘ITAT, Rules’ hereinafter reproduction here. Nevertheless, it shall suffice to state that, these grounds collectively assailed against (a) validity of rejection of books u/s 145(3) of the Act and (b) veracity of estimation of gross profit @8% of total turnover.

4. We have heard rival submission and subject to the provisions of ITAT, rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ ] perused the material placed on records and considered the facts Rules’

in the light of settled legal position. We observed that, the assessee is a registered dealer for retail trading of Country Liquor & Forigne Liquor - Excise Rules &

[‘CL FL’ hereinafter] and under the Maharashtra State Maharashtra State Country Liquor Rules was required to maintain certain stock/inventory registers. In the course of assessment by service of notices dt. 12/06/2018 16/07/2018 & 11/10/2018 u/s 142(1) of the Act the appellant assessee was called upon to produce details of stock, purchases, sales, debtors & creditors, TDS deductions made, TCS collected, proof of Excise License Fees paid, and records maintained as per Excise Department in Form No. CL(15)XV, VAT returns/records/audit report etc. When these notices went unattended, the assessee by service of show cause notices [‘SCN’ hereinafter] issued to it vide dt. 25/10/2018, 15/12/2018 & 24/12/2018 was further provided with multiple opportunities to make good the non-compliance, thi