9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bber and held that person who intend to buy natural rubber, who do not have licence approaches the person who is having the licence, which in the instant case was the assessee who made the purchases on behalf of these unlicensed traders and consequently held, that in such a situation the addition on account of unexplained purchases made not be in order. This finding being based on appreciation of evidence requires no interference. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion, that the deletion of suppressed purchases was rightly made by the first appellate authority and was also justified in estimating the income by applying a net profit rate of total purchases made by the assessee. - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings and had not produced the books of accounts, bills, vouchers etc. Therefore, the AO is justified in rejecting the books of accounts. However, once the books of accounts were rejected, the best method of estimating the income of the appellant was not the one which was adopted by the AO. It would have been a better course to adopt and apply a net profit rate on the total purchases of the appellant as only the total purchases were verifiable. Neither the sale were verifiable nor the expenses were verifiable. If it is accepted that the appellant was making sales to the unlicensed dealers, the practice in that trade has to be kept in mind while estimating the income of the appellant. In such cases, the person who intend to buy natural ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive the appellant benefit of the net profit already disclosed by her and make the addition of the balance. 2. The Department, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was dismissed, against which the present appeal has been filed, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur deleting the addition of ₹ 56,65,753/- made by the AO on a/c of income from undisclosed sources without appreciating that the assessee failed to offer any explanation whatsoever regarding the source of investment in such suppressed purchases of ₹ 56,65,753/-. 3. A notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
