9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own GP of 13.85 per cent for the assessment year under reference as against GP shown at 21.19 per cent in the case of Shri Kiran Raj Solanki, proprietor of M/s Solanki AC Pipe Industries, Jalore, engaged in the same kind of business. The AO, therefore, applied the provisions of s. 145 and estimated the income by applying GP rate of 21.19 per cent as shown in other cases and thereby made a trading addition of Rs. 54,469. Aggrieved, the assessee impugned the addition in appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the AO had relied on the case of Kiran Raj Solanki, proprietor of M/s Solanki AC Pipe Industries, without allowing any specific opportunity to the assessee and without asking the assessee to show cause why the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, evidence and material on record. We are in agreement with the CIT(A) that this was not a fit case for rejection of book results and for applying the provisions of s. 145 merely on the ground that the GP shown by some other assessee's was better than the GP shown by the assessee, moreso when the GP shown by the assessee was higher than the GP shown in the earlier assessment year. Besides, the AO has not pointed out any specific defects in the books of account. All purchases and sales were fully vouched and on the top of it, no discrepancy was found at the time of survey. No instance of understating the sales or inflation of purchases has been pointed out by the AO. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold outside the books of account because the addition was made only on the basis of assumption and presumption that the appellant had sold the stock to the tune of Rs. 2,52,846 outside the books of account. There was no evidence whatsoever in the possession of the AO that the appellant did any work of this type. Survey was conducted in the last quarter of the accounting year and the survey team did not come across any evidence in respect of suppression of income. No sale was found unrecorded, no purchase was also found unrecorded. Without any evidence on record, the AO cannot hold that the appellant had sold any stock outside the books of account. Moreover, while computing the shortage of stock, the AO had totally ignored explanation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock was being shown on the basis of cu. ft. and not on the basis of sq. ft. has not been controverted by the Revenue. Once the assessee had pointed out this fact at the time of survey itself, it was the duty of the survey party to verify this fact before concluding that there was a shortage in the stock. The assessee has all through maintained the same stand and the AO has not cared to rebut such contention of the assessee. Coupled with this is the fact that even during the course of survey, no document or discrepancy in the books of account indicating suppressed sales or inflated purchases was found. Thus, in the light of these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
