9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discretion, unless such exercise of discretion is absolutely arbitrary. The net profit percentage declared by assessee from AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 varies between 1.54% to 3.50%. Though, it is a fact that initially the Tribunal had adopted the net profit rate of 3% in case of retail trade in wine, but, subsequently, in many cases, the Tribunal has approved estimation of profit at 5%. Therefore, con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit. 3. Assessee has raised four grounds. Ground Nos. 1 & 4 are general in nature, hence, no adjudication is required for the same. Ld. AR did not press ground No.3, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The only surviving issue as raised in Ground No. 2 is with regard to profit at 5% from wine business. 5. Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are, assessee an indivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cost of goods sold. While doing so, AO relied upon a decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of M/s Mayuri Wines Vs. ITO, ITA No. 148 to 177/Hyd/12 dated 07/05/12. Being aggrieved with the estimation of net profit at 5%, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A), however, confirmed the estimation of profit at 5%. 6. Ld. AR submitted before us that ITAT in case of ITO Vs. M/s Kan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t though ITAT, Hyderabad Bench initially adopted the net profit rate of 3% in case of wine business, but subsequently in a number of cases held 5% net profit rate to be appropriate. 8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, we agree with the submissions of the ld. DR that uniform net profit rate cannot be adopted in each and every cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the net profit rate of 3% in case of retail trade in wine, but, subsequently, in many cases, the Tribunal has approved estimation of profit at 5%. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that estimation profit at 5% on the cost of goods in the present case is justified. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
