9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f profit from 20% to 8% and directed the A.O. to re-compute the income at 8% of purchase price. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered in the case of Sri Vysyaraju Satyanarayana Raju, Srikakulam Dist. In ITA No.2/Vizag/2016, which is reproduced as under: 3. On being aggrieved, assessee carried matter in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal where the Tribunal has scaled down the estimation of profit from 10% to 5% in the case of Tangudu Jogisetty in ITA No.96/Vizag/2016 by order dated 2.6.2016. 4. On the other 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Visakhapatnam bench in the case of T. Appalaswamy Vs. ACIT in ITA No.65 & 66/Vizag/2012. We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee in the light of the facts of the present case and finds that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, under similar circumstances held that estimation of 5% net profit on purchases is reasonable. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder: "3. We have heard the parties, perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as other materials on record. It is the contention of the Ld. A.R. that the estimation of profit at 16% is high and excessive considering the normal rate of profit in this line of business. Whereas, the Ld. D.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). Having considered the submissions of the assessee, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra in view 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of Rs. 15,99,309/-, the assessee had explained the sources for Rs. 12,13,000/- before the AO and the remaining Rs. 3,86,309/- was added back to the income. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO had inadvertently adopted the figure of Rs. 2,96,433/- as first purchase of liquor instead of correct amount of Rs. 1,47,711/- which resulted in enhancement of addition of Rs. 1,48,722/- by adopting the wrong figure. Therefore, requested to consider the issue and remit the matter back to the file of the AO to reconsider the facts afresh. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. As per para No.5 and 5.1. of the assessment order, the assessee had incurred the expenditure of Rs. 15,99,309/- for setting up the wine business and out of which the AO accepted the sources for Rs. 12,13,000/- and made the addition of Rs. 3,86,309/- representing the balance amount. The AO considered the sum of Rs. 2,96,433/- as first purchase which was incurred without source. As per the ledger account copy placed before us, the first purchase was Rs. 1,44,711/- but not Rs. 2,96,433/-. This fact was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is obligation on the part of the assessee to make known the provisions of Income tax and comply with the statutory requirements. In this case the assessee failed to furnish the evidences before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) and we do not find valid reason for non submission of the evidences before the lower authorities. There should be an end for litigation and the assessee should file the necessary evidence before the AO within the time limit allowed for completion of assessment. In the instant case, the assessee did not furnish the evidences not only before the AO but also before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee also did not submit valid reason for non submission of the details/evidence. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the assessee that the lenders are ignorant, hence did not respond promptly. It is obligation of the assessee to obtain the confirmations and collect the details at the time of taking the loans and subsequently comply with the statutory requirements. The assessee has not placed any evidence or furnished any details either before the AO or before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the assessee for admission of add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld.CIT(A) also the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to prove the genuineness of the outstanding unsecured loans. Therefore, we do not find infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. 13. Ground No.1.7 is related to the unsecured trade creditors. Before the AO, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the outstanding balance of sundry creditors. The assessee neither furnished the confirmation letters nor furnished the names and addresses of the persons with relevant information. Therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs. 4,59,470/- u/s 68 of the Act. During he appeal hearing before the Ld.CIT(A) also, the assessee failed to furnish any information relating to the impugned credits. Even the assessee failed to establish that the amount was relating to the trade creditors. Hence the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR requested for admission of additional evidence in the form of confirmation. As per para No.12 of this order, we have rejected the admission of additional evidence. In the instant case, the assessee failed to submit the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
