9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee had shown sale of Rs. 11,37,267 and the NP is shown at Rs. 1,13,120. The Assessing Officer considered the NP rate of 10 per cent on lower side and applied NP rate of 12.5 per cent by stating that ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of M/s. D.K. Aggarwal Co., Muktsar had confirmed the NP rate of 12.5%. 4. The assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of bricks since 1978 and from the very beginning he has maintained complete records of all transactions of sale and purchases of bricks. It was claimed that the books were produced before the Assessing Officer who examined those and found no infirmity, inaccuracy, wrong entry or omission i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t instead of 10 per cent declared by the assessee. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 7. The next issue relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,22,400 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in chimney. 8. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee constructed a chimney during the year and the investment for the same had been shown at Rs. 77,600. However, the inspector who was deputed by the Assessing Officer had estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 2,13,800. The Inspector further reported that out of above amount relief could have been allowed in view of the assessee s submission that the old chimney was of 65 ft. high and only due to dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to estimate the cost of construction and similarly inquiries were also made from the Pollution Control Board. He pointed out that the Inspector was not entitled to determine the cost of construction as he was not an expert in this line yet report prepared by him was faulty in as much as neither any dimension of the chimney has been given by him nor the report was based on any market enquiries. As regards Assessing Officer s version that the addition has been made on the basis of enquiries made from the Pollution Control Board, Ld. CIT(A) stated that same was not maintainable. Nothing has been placed on record to show that as per the directions of Pollution Control Board, the height of the chimney was required to be 120 ft. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the eyes of law. As regards contention of the ld. DR for the revenue that the assessee, himself agreed during the course of assessment proceedings for an addition of Rs. 2.00 lacs, it is noticed that nothing had been brought on record in what circumstances the assessee agreed for that addition and what were the circumstances when the assessee retracted from the same. 14. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts available on record, are of the view that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on surmises and conjectures and without bringing the material on record. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 15. As regards to the cross-objection raised by the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
