9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) assessee furnished an unaudited P&L Account, which formed the basis for the CIT(A) to apply the profit percentage on the declared sales. In our view, before taking into account such unaudited P&L Account, it was imperative to examine its authenticity and in that respect we do not find any particular finding by the CIT(A). Pertinently, this unaudited P&L Account was not before the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. Thus, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the assessment for the two captioned assessment years back to the file of Assessing Officer for determination afresh in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.4853/Mum/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As a consequence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 r.w.s. 254 of the Act and determined the profit from the export business at ₹ 86,58,600/- for assessment year 1999-2000 and ₹ 5.30,93,790/- for assessment year 2000-01. Additionally, the duty draw back claimed and received by the assessee for the two years amounting to ₹ 15,35,760/- and ₹ 98,91,467/- for assessment years. 1999-2000 and 2000-01 respectively was also assessed to tax. As a consequence, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at ₹ 1,01,94,360/- for assessment year 1999-2000 and ₹ 6,29,85,437/- for assessment year 2000-01. 4. The CIT(A) noted that the charges made by the En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ₹ 1,06,27,124/- (ii) Profit from trading in Bearing (Rs.3,13,36,612 ₹ 1,45,55,10) - ₹ 1,67,81,602/- (iii) Duty Draw back - ₹ 1,69,22,691/- Total Income - Rs.4,43,31,417/- 4.1 In this background, assessee as well as Revenue is in appeal before us by way of cross appeals. Assessee has contested that the estimation of profit made by CIT(A) at 10% is unjustified, whereas the Revenue in its cross appeal contends that the scaling down of estimate of profit by the CIT(A) is not j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y earning duty drawbacks, etc. The aforesaid premise of the Assessing Officer was based on the proceedings initiated by the DRI and the Enforcement Directorate. The impugned order of assessment also reveals that there was no return of income filed by the assessee and that the Assessing Officer collected the details from the office of DRI in order to ascertain the sales made, etc. On such basis, the Assessing Officer proceeded to work out the cost of sales, office expenses, etc. and, thereafter he estimated the profits from business. Ostensibly, as noted by the CIT(A), the profit worked out by the Assessing Officer was almost 875% of the sale price, which is quite unrealistic. The CIT(A) has noticed that the charges made by the DRI and the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur view, before taking into account such unaudited P L Account, it was imperative to examine its authenticity and in that respect we do not find any particular finding by the CIT(A). Pertinently, this unaudited P L Account was not before the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. Thus, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the assessment for the two captioned assessment years back to the file of Assessing Officer for determination afresh in accordance with law. We may clarify here that in the ensuing remand proceedings the onus shall entirely be on the assessee to credibly justify the results declared in unaudited P L Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
