9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) IV, Hyderabad on 16/10/2012, for assessment years 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had returned an income of ₹ 32,93,341/-, as against the returned income of ₹ 3,68,188/- from his business of retail trade in liquor. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ga Wines, ITA No. 591/Hyd/2011, dt. 28.7.2011. 3. M/s Sri Matha Wines, ITA No. 137/Hyd/12, dt. 04/05/12. 4. After considering the submissions of the AR of the assessee, the CIT(A) held that an identical issue has been examined by the jurisdictional ITAT in the subsequent case of M/s Amaravathi Wine Shop in ITA No. 1196/Hyd/2011, dt. 08/06/2012 where it took note of the ACB Investigations in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on Hon ble ITAT decision in the case of Amaravathi Wine Shop. 3. The learned CIT(A) is not correct in resorting to estimation of income @5% on the cost of goods sold instead of affirming the income as assessed by Assessing Officer by estim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to the assessed income not less than the returned income. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 5% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than returned income. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the grounds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
