Tribunal quashes CIT (A) order, remands case for fresh decision. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Appellant's right under section 143(3) emphasized.

The Tribunal quashed the CIT (A) order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The appeal challenging the estimation of income and addition to the returned income was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's right to challenge the assessment order under section 143(3) and rejected the technical approach of the Revenue Officer.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 11 Hyderabad dated 31-03-2022
- Maintainability of a single appeal against composite orders
- Dismissal of the appeal by the CIT (A) despite being filed as a common appeal against different orders
- Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) at 0.53% for A.Y. 2018-19
- Comparison with previous years' GP rates
- Impact of demonetization on GP rates
- Rectification application and subsequent appeal

1. Challenge to CIT (A) Order:
The appeal was directed against the CIT (A) order dated 31-03-2022, challenging the lawfulness, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case. The appellant contended that a single appeal is maintainable against composite orders, citing precedents from the Calcutta and Patna High Courts. However, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal, stating that it was not maintainable despite being filed as a common appeal against orders under different sections of the IT Act 1961.

2. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP):
The appellant objected to the estimation of GP at 0.53% for A.Y. 2018-19 without finding any defects in the audited books of account. The CIT (A) upheld the estimation, citing discrepancies in cash sales compared to previous years. The appellant argued that GP rates for previous years were lower and accepted, questioning the basis for the higher estimation. The impact of demonetization on GP rates in the preceding year was also highlighted.

3. Rectification Application and Appeal:
After receiving the assessment order, the appellant filed a rectification application to correct an error in the assessed income. The Assessing Officer rectified the error, but the appellant remained aggrieved by the assessment order itself. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the rectification pertained to a typographical error and not the estimation of profit. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to a detailed argument regarding the grounds raised before the CIT (A) and the technicalities of the appeal process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the appellant challenging the estimation of income and the addition to the returned income. It was noted that the appeal primarily contested the Assessing Officer's order under section 143(3), which was subsequently rectified. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue Officer's technical approach, emphasizing the right of the appellant to challenge the assessment order. Consequently, the CIT (A) order was quashed, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

---