9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coordinate Bench decision – Decided against Revenue. Additions made on rejecting books of account - Taxability u/s 69 and 69C of the Act – Examination of payments on behalf of license fee – Held that:- The issue of payment of license fee and sources require fresh examination by A.O -assessee is in the same business of running wine shop - the statements did not indicate the business from 1.4.2008 to June, 2008 - The opening stock as on 31.03.2008 was shown as NIL - the purchases from 1.4.2008 to 30.04.2008 and corresponding sales are required to be examined on the basis of books/bank statements – also, outstanding license fee (rather prepaid fee) of earlier year, if assessee was in business as contended, reconciliation with payments this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he estimation, whereas assessee is aggrieved on additions confirmed. ITA.No.278/Hyd/2013 - A.Y.2009-2010 (Revenue Appeal) : 4. This Revenue appeal is against the action of learned CIT(A) in directing A.O. to estimate income @ 5% on the cost of goods sold. The A.O. observed that the assessee had declared a net profit of Rs.4,70,000/- on the sales of Rs.4,20,23,072/- @ 1.12%. The A.O. held that as per the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise-II) Department order in G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 7.2.2005, the retailer's margin, i.e., gross profit is 27% on sale of ordinary liquor products, 20% on medium and premium varieties of Indian liquor and 25% on beer. He concluded that the cost of goods sold during the year was Rs.3,60,10,57/- and ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of account and estimating the net profit at 5% of the purchase price by following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. She ought to have deleted this addition in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble A.P. High Court. 4. Without prejudice to ground No.2, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs.13,36,000/- u/s. 69C despite the fact that the appellant had been in the business of retail sale of IMFL since many years and consequently paid the license fee out of declared sources. She ought to have deleted this addition. 5. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o A.O./CIT(A) was not correct in rejecting the sources. Explaining the facts, assessee claimed only the amount pertaining to the year as the Abkari Year is from 1st July to 30th June which spreads out in two financial years. 10. On perusing the statements and the documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that the issue of payment of license fee and sources thereon require fresh examination by A.O. Admittedly, assessee is in the same business of running wine shop. However, the statements did not indicate the business from 1.4.2008 to June, 2008. The opening stock as on 31.03.2008 was shown as NIL. Therefore, the purchases from 1.4.2008 to 30.04.2008 and corresponding sales are required to be examined on the basis of books/bank stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
