9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accepting past history as the relevant basis for assessment, proceeded to retain a part of the addition without cogent and sufficient reason therefor. The Tribunal, therefore, while endorsing the basis adopted by the CIT(A), has found no reason to sustain any addition and hence, deleted the addition altogether - Tribunal cannot be faulted in accepting the profit rate as declared by the assessee while not approving the rate as applied by the AO - Following decision of ) CIT v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi & Partners [2013 (7) TMI 813 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue. - D.B. IT APPEAL NO.89 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2013 - DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ARUN BHANSALI, JJ. For the Appellant : K.K. Bissa. ORDER:- PER : Arun Bhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1,11,74,756/- by adopting a net profit rate of 18% towards the total outgoings (total payment made to Government for lifting goods) as against the declared rate of 13.54% and the gross profit of the assessee from the IMFL business was assessed at Rs. 2,68,33,377/- as against declared gross profit of Rs. 2,46,55,317/- by adopting a net profit rate of 26% towards the total outgoings as against the declared gross profit rate of 24.40% after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee, under Section 145 of the Act. The profit rate was adopted by the AO by taking into account the past history of the assessee and comparable case of one M/s. Ramesh Kumar Trilok Singh Party, Anoopgarh. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be comparable with the current year than no further trading addition is allowed to be made. In this case the results are far far better than the last year so no further addition is called for. We may refer to the case of Banna Lal Jat v. ACIT reported in XXVI Tax World November 2001 part 5 page No.447 in this regard, inter alia. We may also refer to the case of JCIT v. M/s Tak Sidhawat Party in ITA No.615/JU/1998 order dated 07.07.2003 wherein it has held that "the Assessing Officer has not been able to point out any specific defect in the books of accounts of the assessee, the purchases and sales in quantity are fully vouched and controlled by the Excise Department, in such like cases, we have been holding that unless some specific defec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appeal No.145/2006) CIT v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi Partners held as under:- "In our view, ultimately, the matter had been of putting a estimate on the profit of the assessee while recording the findings on facts. The CIT(A) has given cogent reason for not endorsing the approach of the AO in making assessment with reference to the case of another assessee after finding it to be not a directly comparable case and hence, not a safe guide more particularly, when assessee's past history was available and there was no material difference in the facts pertaining to the relevant assessment year and the past history year. The CIT(A), even while accepting past history as the relevant basis for assessment, proceeded to retain a part of the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
