9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 the gross profit shown by the assessee is 12.75% and 14.88%, which are lower than 15%. Accordingly direct the AO to make addition to the extent of shortfall in gross profit in these two years as compared to the gross profit of 15% i.e. 2.25% in A.Y. 2010-1 0.12@ in A.Y. 2011-12. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 1426 to 1428/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2020 - Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Vimal Punmiya For the Respondent : Shri Dharamveer Singh ORDER PER R.C. SHARMA, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in the matter of orders passed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee sold these and offered the income arising from the said sales for tax purposes. It is a universal truth that sales cannot take place if there are no purchases. When the sales are accepted, the same arises by virtue of foremost purchases made, hence such purchases by no means are questionable or to be disputed. The Ld. AO cannot use one aspect of the matter (i.e. accepting sales) while ignoring the other equally relevant and necessary aspects, (i.e. disputing purchases). Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of M/s Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 5(3)(2). 3) ITAT judgment in the case of ITO 25(3)(4) v/s Shri Sunil B Doshi. 4) ITAT judgment in the case of M/s Miraj Electrical Mechanical Co.Pvt Ltd v/s DCIT-10(2)(2). 5) ITAT judgment in the case of Asst.CIT 19(3) v/s M/s Steel Line (India). 6) ITAT judgment in the case of Shri Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak v/s ITO RG 18(3)(4). 7) ITAT judgment in the case of Nageshwar Steel House v/s ITO 19(2)(4). 8) ITAT judgment in the case of Kanak Steel India v/s ITO 18(2)(1). 9) ITAT judgment in the case of Shri Bhansali Metal Alloys v/s ITO 19(1)(2). 10) ITAT judgment in the case of Asian Chemtech Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO 9(1)(4). 11) High court judgment in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit shown by the assessee is 15% or more no addition is warranted. In the instant case the assessee has declared gross profit of 16.47% in A.Y. 2009-10, accordingly I direct the AO not to make any addition. However, in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 the gross profit shown by the assessee is 12.75% and 14.88%, which are lower than 15%. Accordingly I direct the AO to make addition to the extent of shortfall in gross profit in these two years as compared to the gross profit of 15% i.e. 2.25% in A.Y. 2010-1 0.12@ in A.Y. 2011-12. I direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is allowed whereas appeals for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
