9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of ₹ 46,11,148/- made by the A.O on account of estimation of gross profit on the estimated sales calculated on the basis of alleged difference in purchases - Decided against revenue - ITA No.1320/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2018 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr For The Assessee : Shri Manoj Fadnis,CA ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance of Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 and is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (Appeals)(in short Ld.CIT(A) ], Bhopal dated 27.09.2016 which is arising out of the order u/s 147 r. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,39,85,890/- and made addition of gross profit of ₹ 46,11,148/- by applying gross profit rate at 33.97%. Income assessed at ₹ 1,81,41,818/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and succeeded on the ground relating to the alleged addition of ₹ 46,11,148/- but Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition made by Ld.A.O at ₹ 2,82,339/- for difference in purchase. The alleged addition made by Ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged before us and only the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of addition made at ₹ 46,11,148/-. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the finding of Ld.A.O. 7. Per contra the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the finding of Ld.CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount of purchases on which no issue for Liquor is lifted as per certificate of Excise department 17,37,492 Total adjusted amount of purchases as per books of accounts 16,95,66,125 10. We further find that the following finding of Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 46,11,148/- has not been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative. 4.6 I have considered the reasoning given in the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The AO has not discussed or rebutted the explanation given by the assessee during assessment proceedings. The addition has been made simply stating that the assessee could not substantiat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Form No. 26AS, there is no element of under- disclosure of income. Regarding the purchase of country liquor, the appellant has filed a certificate from the State Excise Department, Distt. Sehore, confirming that during the F.Y. 2008-09, the appellant deposited license fee of ₹ 13,71,76,887 in respect of country liquor. However, stocks were lifted for ₹ 13,54,39,395/- only and stocks were not lifted for ₹ 17,37,492/-. As stated by ld. AR, since the stocks were not lifted, the amount of ₹ 17,37,492/- was not shown under the had purchases but under the had License Fee paid. The explanation of the appellant is acceptable in view of the certificate of the Excise authorities. In view of the above facts, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
