9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is not available now for estimating the profit. We, therefore, direct the AO to adopt a net profit @3.3% on the turnover excluding the turnover as determined by the Excise Authorities. Ground of the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Addition on account of Central Excise, addition on account of VAT and undisclosed investment - HELD THAT:- We find that the CESTAT vide its order [2018 (10) TMI 82 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer is not justified. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition Addition on account of unaccounted business of the assessee - AO on the basis of show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR For the Revenue : Shri Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: These two appeals by the Assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I Indore dated 21/02/2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. First we take up revenues appeal in ITANo.792/Ind/2016. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition made on account of estimated GP. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , after scrutinising the books of accounts, loose documents and other documents, issued show cause notice, thereby the assessee was called upon to explain about clandestine clearance of TMT bars valued at ₹ 94,79,17,806/-. The A.O., therefore, issued a notice to the assessee and made addition on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Central Excise Department. The AO also rejected books of accounts and made addition account of gross profit at ₹ 8 crores, addition on account of Central Excise at ₹ 7,97,54,165/-, addition on account of VAT ₹ 3,41,55,992/- and undisclosed investment of ₹ 5 crores. 3.Aggrieved by this the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice issued by the Excise Department and order in original appeal have been set aside by the CESTAT vide order dated 27.9.2018. The ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Somani Pilkington s Ltd., 133 Taxman 717 (P H) further supports the claim of the assessee. More so no independent inquiry in this regard was made by the AO. 5.We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions and relying upon earlier order of the Tribunal applied net profit @ 2.3%. We find that Ld. CIT(A) observed that in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 in IT(SS)A Nos.24 35/Ind/2010, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.2.2012 had approved application of net profit rate @ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue are dismissed. 7.Through ground no.4, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 5 crores on account of unaccounted business of the assessee. The Assessing Officer on the basis of show cause notice of the Excise Department reached to a conclusion that the assessee was engaged in the business of unaccounted sales out of its books of account and therefore, some investment would also have been made by the assessee for the alleged unaccounted business. The ld. CIT/DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). Considering the material available on record, we find that the CESTAT vide order dated 27.9.2018 has set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of the assessee was selected under CASS, then the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make inquiry other than the reason for selection of the case for scrutiny. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee did not press ground nos.1 2 of the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, same are dismissed as not pressed. 10.Ground No.3 of the appeal of the assessee is with regard to rejection of books of account. 11.The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had not followed the provisions of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT/DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find that the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
