9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the book results of the assessee.A.O. has also not brought any material on record to justify higher estimation of income and even no comparable case or history of the assessee have been mentioned. Thus, it was a mere estimation of income without any justification. A.O. has also referred to his order for preceding A.Y. 2010- 2011 while making estimation of income, but, the Ld. CIT(A) on consideration of the details on record found that in preceding assessment year he has rejected the book results of the assessee and estimated the gross profit at 25%. In assessment year under appeal there is a significant fall in the turnover of the assessee and assessee has disclosed G.P. at 24%. The A.O. has not rejected the book results of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of ITR-4 filed for year under consideration, the assessee has shown total turnover of ₹ 3,68,46,437/- as against the turnover of ₹ 13,43,51,188/- shown by the assessee in the immediately preceding year. A perusal of the assessment order for the A.Y. 2010-11 shows that as against the returned income of ₹ 6,97,500/-, income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 8,56,53,840/- after making additions /disallowances under various heads of income. Since the assessee failed to file any financial statements, Audit Report and other details except bank statements, the A.O. estimated the income of assessee at ₹ 2,50,00,000/- as against the returned income. 4. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses continued to be in cash and remain un-verifiable. 7. Although, the relevant details filed show that the manufacturing expenses are to a large extent verifiable and incurred in the purpose of business. It is also a fact that books have not been produced. In the preceding year, I had estimating the gross profit at 25%' after rejecting the books of grounds.. During the year, under review the appellant has disclosed a gross profit of 24%. Considering the significant drop in the turnover and since G.P. cannot remain the same in every year the trading results of the appellant are accepted. 5. After considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R, we are of the view that no interference is required in the matter. The Ld. D.R. con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
