9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my ORDER Per Asha Vijayaraghavan, J.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 23/09/2013 for AY 2009-10. Assessee also filed C.O. against the said order of CIT(A). 2. The cross objection filed by the assessee was delayed by 234 days. The reason for the delay has been stated in the Affidavit filed by the assessee dated 30.09.2014 as follows: 2. I have received the copy of Form No.36 along with notice of hearing on 14 April 2014 sometime in March, 2014. I do not know the exact date of receipt as I did not preserve the postal envelop. When the notice for the next date of hearing of 14 July 2014 was received in May, 2014 I have handed over the same to my Chartered Accountant Sri P.M. Venkatesan of M/s V. Narasimha Iyer and Company, who further requested Dr. C.P. Ramaswami, Advocate to appear on behalf of my firm. 3. I have been advised to file a cross objection, which should have been filed by middle of April, 2014. The delay of about 234 days has been caused due to misplacement of the postal envelop, heart attach suffered by my Chartered Accountant Sri P.M. Venkatesan due to the proposed demolition of his off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure gold are differing from place to place in India as well, hence the submissions of the assessee are not acceptable. The assessing officer after considering the explanation and graph submitted by the assessee opined that through the particulars of the sales, assessee had concealed the income chargeable to tax and hence rejecting the books of account estimated the profit @0.5% of the total turnover of pure gold of ₹ 309,21,97,256/- which worked out to ₹ 1,54,60,986/- and brought the same to tax. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 5. Before the CIT(A) assessee filed petition for admission of additional evidence being in the nature of graphic details of the relevant period for the AY under consideration. The assessee stated that the assessing officer had sought this information during assessment proceedings, which could not be produced due to non availability at that time and had sought for admitting the same as additional evidence and consideration of same in deciding the appeal. The assessee also furnished a copy of the assessment order for the asst. year 2008-09 dt. 25.11.2010 u/s. 143(3) of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Proddutur. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee regarding the rate variation depending upon the rates of the international markets is not correct. If the assessee's contention is correct, then the rates at all these above mentioned places should be in uniform, but are not. f) The assessee himself has stated that the rates vary from second to second. As seen from the books of accounts, bills, the rates on 02.04.2008, 05.04.2008, 19.04.2008, 08.05.2008, 5.05.2008, 02.06.2008, 06.06.2008, 27.06.2008 etc. the rates are uniform. But as seen from the graph on the dates mentioned above, the rates are fluctuating. Therefore, the assessee's contention is not correct . 6. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee observed that assessee had a huge turnover of ₹ 309.21 Crores under the head of trade in bullion itself, for the year under reference, on which the profit of ₹ 30,38,314/- was offered, as per the details brought on record. It was observed that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O has observed that the assessee was recording the purchases as per the market rates, which were shown t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 309.21 Crores, was shown around 0.098% (Rs. 30,38,314 on ₹ 309.21 Cr.), whereas the A.O has estimated the same at 0.5%, resulting in additional profits of ₹ 1.24 Crores to the assessee. It is a fact that the margins are quite low in trading in bullion and specially in the wholesale trading, such margins are bound to be much lower. However, the assessee failed to exercise the option/opportunity for explaining on the observations made in the Remand Report, on the issue. Keeping all the above facts in mind, it is held that there is scope for manipulations of the profits, where the sales are effected in cash and sale prices are not in tandem with the purchase prices. Under the circumstances, it may be reasonable to put the gross profit at 0.20% as against 0.098% shown by the assessee in his books, and as against the rate of 0.5% adopted by the A.O. Accordingly, the A.O is directed to re-compute the total income of the assessee by adopting the gross profit on bullion trade receipts of ₹ 309.21 Crores at 0.200/0, which may meet the justice at both the ends. Thus, this ground of appeal is treated as Partly Allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
