9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce the books of account and other information, and re-determine the income accordingly. The directions given in the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sujana Universal Industries Ltd. and M/s Sujana Metal Products Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 580 - ITAT HYDERABAD] dated 13.8.2013, extracted above, apply mutatis mutandis to this case as well. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices, and the Assessing Officer is directed to complete the assessment afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.” As the issue under consideration is materially identical to the one decided by the coordinate bench in case of M/s Sujana Towers Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 805 - ITAT HYDERABAD], we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of AO with a direction to decide the same in the light of the said decision of the coordinate bench. The ground raised by assessee as well as by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. We have heard the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record as well as orders of the revenue authorities. Since the CIT(A) has given a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Difference Ouantitv Value Ouant tv Value November 752526 36,35,86,287 7525.26 33,54,45,642 28140645 December 5490.33 408038118 5490.33 41 6769098 8730980 January 11790.82 509778422 11790.82 529457858 1 9679,436 February 10300.82 4326 69 153 ! 432854828 185675 March 11387.98 674830627 ! 71 1600054 36769427 From the above it can be seen that the assessee incurred huge loss of ₹ 2.81 crores in the span of only one month i.e. November. Further the assessee company at Chennai for the month of February purchased 792.44 Mt for ₹ 2,28,22,301/- which works out to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts is absolutely in order. 4.10 Coming to the estimation of income at 1 % of the turnover, once the books have been rejected, the onus now shifts to the assessing officer and it is his duty to estimate the income of the assessee based on cogent reasoning and facts on record. I find that the assessing officer has not brought on record even a single comparable case of assessees who are in similar line of business, He has also not brought on record any other information from which it can be inferred as to what should be the actual net profits of someone who is in similar line of business. Therefore, the estimation of income has not been done on the basis of concrete information. On the other hand, the appellant has stated that its own average net profit of the last three years is less than 1 % and this is in line with other similar businesses in the market. The appellant s net profits are available on record. However with regard to other businesses who have similar setups, the appellant has also not brought any information on record. Based on the above discussion, I find that the estimation .of the assessing officer is on the higher side and on the other hand the' book , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer for fresh examination, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) impugned therein. 8. Learned Departmental Representative, on the contrary, opposing the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the ground that the rate of 1.5% adopted by the Assessing Officer was in line with the trend in the market in assessee s line of business, submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities and other material available on record. We have also considered the specific plea of the assessee for one more opportunity for furnishing the relevant books of account and other details, if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. We find that this Tribunal, in the context of additions made similar circumstances and considering similar pleas of the assessee, in the cases of assessee s own group, vide its order dated 13.8.2013, restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, in the following manner- 10. Considering the submissions of the parties and keeping in view the interest of justice, we allow one more opportunity to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re as under: 6. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of depreciation of ₹ 10,57,816 on computers by considering that the assets was not in existence on the basis of previous year. 7. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that once income is estimated, no other additions can be made to the income of appellant company. 10. AO had disallowed depreciation of ₹ 10,57,816 on computers following the decision taken in earlier years. On appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) observed that original claim was not allowed because assessee had not been able to prove purchase of computers. In other words the very existence of the assets in question was unproven. Therefore, it was only logical that further claims on the same non-existent assets had to be disallowed. He further observed that even during the current year, the assessee has not been able to prove the existence of those computers. He, therefore, upheld the action of Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 11. The learned AR submitted before us that in assessee s case, the income was determined on estimation. Therefore, once the income of the assessee is estimated, no sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
