9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finding of CIT (Appeals)acceptable and reversing the same, it has accepted profitability as assessed by assessing officer. It is no doubt true that appellate authority cannot pass order of dismissal/rejection without reversing/upsetting findings recorded by Court/ authority below which has not been done by CIT (Appeals) in the present case. For reasons aforesaid, Tribunal has discussed profitability as accepted by CIT (Appeals) and found the same not justified or correct, has rightly declined to accept the same. Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal restoring assessment order cannot be said to be faulty or erroneous in any manner. - Income Tax Appeal No. 123 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2016 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause these are on test check basis. Secondly the Ld. counsel of the appellant has himself audited the accounts as on 1.10.87 and further defects have been pointed out that the appellant has claimed excess deduction of ₹ 24,911/-. Another important fact which emerges from the audited accounts as on 1.10.87 and 31.3.89 is that opening trial balance and closing trial balances are not verifiable. I asked a pointed question to the Ld. counsel of the appellant that whether he could not get these verified and prove the sundry creditors and sundry debtor. The Ld. counsel of the appellant expressed his inability on the ground that more than 10 years have elapsed and it is very difficult to get them verified at this stage. The only criterian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail in profit and held that line of business is same and no reason has been given for alleged fail in profit. CIT (Appeals) further held that some sites in assessment year 1987-88 and 1988-89 were common. He applied ratio of net profit rate of 1% for assessment year 1988-89 also for the reason that in assessment year 1986-87, appellant himself declared net profit rate of 1%. This finding has not been approved by Tribunal and it has discussed the same in para 20 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: 20. Ld. D.R. has pointed out that the Assessing Officer has been more than reasonable by allowing 2.27%. We further notice that heavy amounts have been claimed inter-alia under Advertisement Expenses, Vehicle Running Expenses, Kitc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ationary trend, the administrative expenses was determined in respect of assessment year in question, as detailed in para 14 of impunged judgment of Tribunal, which reads as under: 14. Thus it is clear that after the search the G.P. rate was taken at 10%. The business of the assessee continued to be the same. Therefore, in our opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to start with the G.P. rate of 10% and consider the deductions claimed there form by the assessee rather than taking the N.P. rate at 2.5%. The main dispute is in regard to the administrative expenses to the tune of ₹ 42,26,662/- claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee was unable to give details of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Payment of personnel 515965.00 2. Rent 95366.00 3. Postage telegram 14503.00 4. Telephone Expenses 189832.00 5. Travelling conveyance 292106.00 6. Vehicle Running maintenance 576311.00 7. Advertisement 117486.00 22637.00 8. News paper Books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89-90. There was no justification to assume that administrative expenses of 1988-89 were same as that of 1986-87 and CIT (Appeals) has not given any cogent reason whatsoever, to accept this profitability that is why in light of difference in receipts of expenses shown by the assessing officer, Tribunal has not accepted the same and in our opinion rightly so. 8. Tribunal has not found the finding of CIT (Appeals)acceptable and reversing the same, it has accepted profitability as assessed by assessing officer. It is no doubt true that appellate authority cannot pass order of dismissal/rejection without reversing/upsetting findings recorded by Court/ authority below which has not been done by CIT (Appeals) in the present case. 9. For rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
