9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defect or deficiency in the books of account - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.403/Hyd/2014, ITA No.545/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - B Ramakotaiah And Saktijit Dey JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P Murali Mohan Rao For the Respondent : Shri Ramakrishna Bandi ORDER Per Bench: These cross appeals are against the order dated 15/01/2014 passed by ld. CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad for the AY 2009-10. 2. Assessee has raised nine grounds. Ground No. 1 9 being general in nature do not require any specific adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 are on the common issue of rejection of books of account and estimation of profit by ld. CIT(A) at 0.7%. Whereas, the only ground in department s appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt and estimating the profit, however, he was of the opinion that estimation of profit at 1% on gross sales is on the higher side and accordingly, thought it reasonable to estimate the profit at 0.7% on gross sales. Being aggrieved of such decision, both assessee as well as revenue are in appeals before us. 5. Ld. AR submitted before us that there is no valid ground for rejection of books of account as AO has not found specific defect/deficiency in the books of account maintained by assessee. Ld. AR submitted, assessee can explain each entry of the books of account with supporting evidence if opportunity is given to assessee. In this context, ld. AR referred to an order of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in case of DCIT Vs. Glob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to assessee to explain the entries made therein, but also point out any specific defect or deficiency in the books of account. In case of DCIT Vs. Glogal Forging Ltd. (supra)referred to by ld. AR, the coordinate bench held as under: 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. In view of the plea of the ld. counsel for the assessee for one more opportunity of producing the books of account and other material before the AO in support of the income declared, to which the ld. DR also did not raise any objection, and also keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal noted above, we set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(A)and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the assessment proceeding for AYs 2008-09 AO has disallowed the claim of depreciation of ₹ 11,29,174 in the block of computes on which assessee claimed depreciation @ 60%. According to the AO, the same should have been reduced from the opening Written Down Value (WDV) of the computer block. However, opening WDV of computers shown by assessee for the impugned AY does not show such reduction. Accordingly, AO revised the opening WDV to ₹ 6,48,077 and disallowed the amount of ₹ 6,75,705 by treating it as excess claim made by assessee. Ld. CIT(A) also sustained such disallowance by observing that assessee could not provide any details to counter the observations of AO. 10. At the time of hearing, ld. AR has not advanced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
