9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Assessing Officer when he passed the order on 31.12.2008. In these circumstances, the application of 20% of the sales as gross profit, as against the claim of the assessee founded on the return for assessment year 2002-2003 (14.49%), was wholly unjustified since the Assessing Officer had not given any basis whatsoever for the same. There was no comparative data available with the Assessing Officer for inferring the gross profit at such higher rate. Thus, find no error or impropriety in the view taken by the two appellate authorities below in the impugned orders. - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the total sale consideration of ₹ 1,95,78,915/-, in the total income of the assessee for income tax purposes. He also disallowed the 1/5th of the ₹ 6,61,704/-, claimed by the assessee under the heads of car maintenance, telephone expenses and depreciation on car, on the reasoning that the possibility for the personal use by the partners and their family members cannot be ruled out. 4. The CIT (A), in its order dated 23.11.2009, deleted the addition of ₹ 39,15,783/- made by the Assessing Officer applying the 20% of the gross profit rate on the total sale, after rejection of books of accounts u/s 145 of the Act, and reduced the disallowance of the car maintenance, telephone expenses and depreciation on car from 20% to 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period ending 31.3.2005 and also the audited cash book. The AO has made the observation on the basis of impounded books, which were incomplete, a fact duly admitted by the appellant from time to time. However, the books were completed by the appellant subsequently and complete books of accounts were duly audited by the Auditors. Therefore, the basis for the AO to reject the books on this ground is arbitrary and not sustainable. Secondly as mentioned by the appellant as per the trend, the appellant does not maintain stock register since inception in view of the fact that it involves sale of manifold variety of watches. This has been the practice in use by the appellant for last 60 years. There is no statutory requirement requiring th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 and, thus, was very much available to the Assessing Officer when he passed the order on 31.12.2008. 9. In these circumstances, the application of 20% of the sales as gross profit, as against the claim of the assessee founded on the return for assessment year 2002-2003 (14.49%), was wholly unjustified since the Assessing Officer had not given any basis whatsoever for the same. There was no comparative data available with the Assessing Officer for inferring the gross profit at such higher rate. Thus, we do not find any error or impropriety in the view taken by the two appellate authorities below in the impugned orders. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 10. In the result, the appeal must be dismissed. We order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
