9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. At the outset, we have been informed that in the past in assessee s own case for this very assessment year, i.e. A.Y. 2004-05 the ITAT B Bench Ahmedabad vide an order dated 18.2.2010, titled as The Dy.CIT vs. Smt.Jayaben Bholabhai Patel (in ITA Nos.2847 3332/Ahd/2007 cross appeals) has restored this very issue back to the file of the AO as per the following directions:- 7. As regards estimation of profits after rejection of books results, we are of the opinion that it is not open to the AO to make any addition on estimate basis or on pure guess work. The ld. CIT(A) while upholding the findings of the AO regarding estimation of profits on the basis of compable results in the case of few other assesses including a sister c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department at that time was that the assessee had failed to furnish the qualitative details of closing stock. On account of that reason, the AO had picked up few cases and on the basis of those comparable instances assessed the income by enhancing GP rate by 4%. In the second round of proceedings, on one hand, the Revenue has given certain comparable instances, and on the other hand, the Assessee has also made certain references of comparable cases which were stated to be in assessee s favour. Considering that situation, the AO has commented in para-7.3 that it was difficult to assess the income by adopting the method of comparable cases to arrive at the estimated income of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO has commented that the profitabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant, is difficult time consuming. This observation of the A.O. perhaps reflects very badly on the part of the A.O. Apart from this fact, the submissions (reasons for fall) given by the appellant with regard to fall in G.P. is quite reasonable. Even the addition made on the basis of yield lacks application of mind as there are many factors which are responsible for variation of yield and the A.O. has not discussed/considered those factors while estimating 1% of suppressed yield for making addition. 5. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we are of the conscientious view that the AO has not followed the directions of the Tribunal as given by order dated 18/02/2010 (supra). The direction of the Tribunal was that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
