9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prospective buyers who advanced the loans to the assessee are from same village of the assessee. When I specifically pointed out the A.R. of the assessee that why you are not able to file confirmation letters from the loan creditors who are belonging to your native village, he has not given any explanation. Under these above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to admit the additional evidence at this juncture, therefore, additional evidence filed by the assessee is rejected and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. Unsecured loans - ingenuity of receipt - Held that:- In the case of Shri N. Neelakanteswara Rao from whom the assessee has received ₹ 2 lakhs has not filed return of income for assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has not filed bank account of Shri N.Neelakanteswara Rao to prove that the transaction has been taken place through bank. Similarly, in case of B. Bala Murali Krishna also the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 and bank account of B. Bala Murali Krishna has not been submitted. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supported the order passed by the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in this appeal is estimation of profit in respect of IMFL business carried by the assessee. In this respect, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tangudu Jogisetty (supra) has considered the profit level in the line of business and decided that 5% of purchase price is reasonable profit margin in the line of IMFL business and directed the A.O. to re-compute the profit of the assessee. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. estimated net profit of 20% on stock put for sale. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee has not maintained proper books of accounts and vouchers in support of purchases and sales. The A.O. further observed that the assessee has failed to maintain stock registers and books of accounts maintained by the assessee are not susceptible for verifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a series of decisions of the ITAT Hyderabad bench in similar cases. The coordinate bench in case of ITA No.127/Hyd/12 and others dated 18.05.2012 as well as a number of other cases have held that profit in case of business in Indian made foreign liquor has to be estimated at 5% of the purchases made by the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad bench, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to estimate the profit from the wine business of the assessee by applying the rate of 5% of the purchases made net of all other deductions. The assessing officer should also bear in mind that in no case the income determined should be below the income returned. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also respectfully following the ratios of coordinate bench, we are of the view that the net profit estimated by the A.O. by relying upon the decision of Hon ble A.P. High Court (supra), which was rendered under different facts is quite high. On the other hand, the assessee relied upon the decision of coordinate bench and the coordinate bench under similar circumstances estimated the net profit of 5% on total purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e buyers but he has not given any names details and therefore, the impugned amount of ₹ 12,17,723/- is treated as unexplained investment and the same is brought to tax under the head income from other sources . 7. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not filed any details, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a paper book consisting details of the persons from whom he received advance from page no.1 to 135 consisting near about 59 parties and submitted that these are the people from whom he has received the advances and the same may be admitted for remitting the matter back to the A.O. for fresh adjudication after according an opportunity of being heard. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. opposed the admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. 9. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue before me is for consideration of unexplained amount of ₹ 12,17,723/-. The assessee has submitted before the A.O. that this amount was received by him from prospective buyers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn in favour of District Collector at the request of the assessee and submitted the same to the Excise Department for License fee payment. The A.O. has considered the explanation of the assessee and he has observed that in the case of Shri N. Neelakanteswara Rao from whom the assessee has received ₹ 2 lakhs has not filed return of income for assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has not filed bank account of Shri N.Neelakanteswara Rao to prove that the transaction has been taken place through bank. Similarly, in case of B. Bala Murali Krishna also the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 and bank account of B. Bala Murali Krishna has not been submitted. The assessee claims to have received an amount of ₹ 1 lakh from Smt. Usha Kumari but no details are filed. Therefore, the entire ₹ 5 lakhs treated by A.O. is unexplained and brought to tax under the head income from other sources . On appeal, CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O. Even before me, assessee has not filed any details and no confirmation letters. Thus, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
