9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of purchases, sales and closing stock which has been noted at page 3 of the assessment order. Thus, in the present case also, it cannot be said that there were no details maintained by the assessee in regard to sales. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Ld. counsel for the assessee is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, respectfully following the same, it is held that the rejection of books of account solely on the basis of non-maintenance of sales vouchers was not justified. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.1666/Del/2013, ITA No.3794/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2016 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.66/- iv) M.R.P. of 750 ml. Rs.131/- 4. He further noted that the purchase price of the aforesaid items were as under :- i) Purchase price of 180 ml. Rs.26.17 ii) Purchase price of 200 ml. Rs.28.61 iii) Purchase price of 375 ml. Rs.51.87 iv) Purchase price of 750 ml. Rs.99.31 5. Thus, he concluded that the average G.P. on these four items was much higher than the G.P. shown by the assessee. He requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g GP @ 21% of total purchases at ₹ 21,36,863/- and thereby determining net profit at ₹ 6,23,970/-. The action of the AO is confirmed on this aspect. Grounds of appeal Nos.2 to 9 are dismissed. 6. Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee s appeal. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has taken following grounds of appeal :- 1. Appellate order as completed is wrong, illegal and against the facts. 2. That the L'd C.I.T. (A) should not have confirmed the rejection of account application of higher G.P., as done by L'd A.O. in assessment order. 3. That the appellant has maintained the proper accounts including Stock Register. The L'd A.O. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. In these circumstances the L'd CIT (A) should have not confirmed the application of higher rate of G.P. 6. That the G.P. applied by A.O. is very very excessive when the appellant filed the comparable case decision of Hon ble High Court Hon ble ITAT in support of G.P. shown by him. In the appellate order, the L d CIT(A) should have accepted the G.P. shown by the appellant after considering the comparable cases other judgements of higher courts. 7. The L d CIT(A) should have not confirmed the enhancement of the sales on the basis of conjuncture surmises. 7. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee s books of account had been rejected solely on the ground that sales were not duly vouched. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Custom Vs. Stoneman Marble, (2011) 2 SCC 758, Vijay K.Talwar Vs. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673, New Plaza Restaurant vs. ITO, 309 ITR 259 (HP) and Sanjay Oil Cake Vs. CIT, 316, ITR 274 (Gujrat). 8. In the case of Prayag Wines (supra), the Hon ble Allahabad High Court relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Vishnbu Chandra Vipin Chandra, 50 STC 345, wherein the Court held that failure to issue cash memos was insufficient to reject the books of account, where the books were otherwise verifiable. In the present case, the assessee in its reply dated 31.10.2011 noted at page 2 of the assessment order had clearly stated that Stock Register was maintained by assessee which gave all the details of opening stock, purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
