आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri Balakrishnan S., Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.483/Viz/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year:2018-19)

Go Iron Marketing, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(3), PAN: AANFG6474D Visakhapatnam.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, CA (Hybrid Hearing)

राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of 03/11/2025 Hearing:

घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee firm is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 26/07/2025 which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 01/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (in short 'CIT(A)) u/s 250 of IT Act dated 26-07-2025, partly confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 r.ws of the IT Act dt. 01-02-2024, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law

2. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer (JAD) is invalid in terms of section 151A as per which notice u/s 148 shall be issued through automated allocation by National Faceless Assessing Officer ('NFAC), which action of JAD rendered the entire re assessment proceedings void-ab-

initio

3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in estimating net profit of the assessee at 10% of the gross turnover, which is unreasonable, considering the nature of assessee's business and such estimation is without any basis.

4. The Learned CIT(A), while considering to estimate the income, ought to have considered the profit made by assessee as reported in the Returns filed for earlier and subsequent Assessment years, as suggested by Judiciary in several cases. 5. For these and such other grounds, that may be urged at the time of hearing of subject appeal, the appellant prays before the Hon'ble ITAT that the directions be given to the Ld AO to estimate the income a reasonable percentage or provide such other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it.”

2. Succinctly stated, the AO, based on information received through Insight Portal (NMS), which revealed that, as per the TCS statement of M/s National Enterprises, the assessee firm had made transactions of Rs. 3,25,67,200/- with the said concern but had not filed its return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 01/04/2022, was issued by the AO. However, the assessee firm failed to comply with the said notice and did not file its return of income in response thereto.

3. As the assessee firm failed to comply with the notices issued by under section 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the AO was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act.

4. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to M/s National Enterprises. In response, M/s National Enterprises (supra) furnished the relevant documents, which revealed that the assessee firm had purchased “screened fines” for an amount of Rs. 3,25,67,200/-, from the aforementioned concern, on which tax was collected at source (TCS) of Rs. 3,25,672/-.

5. The AO, in the absence of any return of income filed by the assessee firm, was constrained to estimate its income @ 20% of the value of the subject purchases, i.e., Rs. 65,13,440/- (20% of the subject purchases of Rs. 3,25,67,200/-).

6. Aggrieved, the assessee