9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated & completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For this, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in confirming the legality of order passed by the AO u/s 153A/143(3) and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the action of the Ld CIT(A) in such respect is wholly bad & illegal and such order is liable to be quashed / cancelled / set aside and it may kindly be held accordingly. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1 above and in view of the facts and in circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that no valid search having taken place in respect of the appellant, the proceedings so initiated by the AO u/s. 153A is void abinitio and the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the fact dismissed the appellant's ground in such respect and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the ordered so passed u/s.153A may kindly be quashed / cancelled / set aside. 3. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances and without prejudice to Grounds N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e offered income on the undisclosed turnover @ 1% but the AO rejected the same and estimated @ 4% of the turnover. The AO accordingly determined the profit at Rs. 32,57,057.00 and added to the total income of the assessee. 10. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO has adopted the rate of gross profit arbitrary and without any base. The assessee in support of his claim has submitted that Magna Dealers Private Limited (MDPL for short) is also engaged in similar business of trading items. The MDPL has shown its gross profit in the last 4 years as detailed under : S. No. AYs GP Rate 1. 2006-07 1.09% 2. 2007-08 1.43% 3. 2008-09 0.26% 4. 2009-10 0.36% The above gross profit rate declared by the MDPL was duly accepted by the Revenue in the assessment of MDPL. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee has reduced the gross profit from 4% to 1.5% of the undisclosed turnover by observing as under:- "8. I have perused the assessment order and considered the submissions of the appellant as well as the material on record. The undisclosed sales for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A), Central-I, Kolkata has erred in deleting the gross profit of Rs. 20,35,661/- from Rs. 32,57,057/- at the rate from 4% to 1.5% stating the AO was unjustified and excessive addition was made." 11. The ld. DR before us relied on the order of AO and he left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. On the other hand, the ld AR before us filed a paper book which is running from pages 1 to 184 and reiterated the arguments that were made before the ld. CIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground of appeal is arising as alleged by the Revenue that the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the GP rate. In this regard it was found that the addition was made by estimating the gross profit @ 4% on the undisclosed turnover. Admittedly, the assessee was engaged in the trading business which was not disclosed to the Revenue. Now, the issue arises for adjudication to work out the income earned by the assessee from his undisclosed business. The assessee has offered gross profit on such undisclosed business @ 1% whereas the AO has taken gross profit @ of 4%. However, on perusal of assessment order, we find that the estima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings incorporates all the debit and credit entries recorded in the seized documents SPB/19, SPB/20, SPB/21 and SPB/23. The AO has also admitted that the cash payments record in the impounded documents represent personal expenses as well as unaccounted investment. I find from the assessment order that the AO has considered all the receipts as appearing in the impounded documents SPB/19, SPB/20, SPB/21 and SPB/23 while computing the undisclosed sales for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The AO has also stated in the assessment order that the cash payments totaling to Rs. 34,00,000/- are recorded in the impounded document SPB/19. I find merit in the argument that when the AO has considered all the receipts recorded in the impounded document SPB/19 while computing the undisclosed sales, then no separate addition can be made on account of payments recorded in such impounded documents as they have come out of the receipts already considered by the AO. I have already confirmed the undisclosed sales of Rs. 1,86,57,135/-, Rs. 7,67,35,863/- and Rs. 8,14,26,433/- in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 as computed by the AO in his assessment orders. I have al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as explained in view of the receipts recorded in SPB/19 which have already been considered by the AO. The aforesaid factual finding was not controverted by the ld. DR. Therefore we fully agree with the reasons given by the ld. CIT-A and for the same we rely in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons reported in 63 ITR 411 wherein it was held as under:- "The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by AAC and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the AAC on which the decision was given against the assessee or the Department." Therefore we concur with the view of ld. CIT(A) and hence this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 18. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Coming to assessee's CO No.94/Kol/2013. 19. First issue raised in ground No. 1 is that the validity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
