9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of net profit at 7% is not justified. The decision relied upon by Ld. DR in the case of PCIT Vs. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. [ 2016 (1) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is in respect of the disallowance of expenses which were made by Assessing Officer @ 10% which were sustained by appellate authorities at 5%, therefore, the said decision is only on the point of reasonable disallowance of expenses and not on the estimation of income after rejection of books of account. Hence, the said decision would not help the case of revenue. Similarly under similar the decision in the case of Goodyear India Ltd.[ 2000 (7) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT] was again on the issue of disallowance of the expenses and not regarding estimation of income after rejectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so made amounting to ₹ 3,68,770/- on this account is unwarranted and liable to be declared. 4. That in any view of the matter interest charged u/s. 234A, 234B of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified. 5. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his rights to take any fresh ground of the appeal before hearing of the appeal. It is therefore prayed that a suitable order may kindly be passed and relief may please be allowed accordingly. 3. The only issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is regarding addition made by Assessing Officer by applying net profit rate of 7% as against net profit declared by assessee at 6.5%. 4. I have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the material availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied the same may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the net profit declared by assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 is not comparable for the year under consideration as two counts. First the return of income filed by assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 was processed u/s. 143(1) and there is no scrutiny assessment and secondly the turnover has increased more than three times. He has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. 382 ITR 152 as well as Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. CIT 246 ITR 116. He has also relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of books of account. The comparative details for the A.Y. 2011-12 and for the year under consideration are not in dispute. The assessee has declared better N.P. for the year under consideration on a substantial higher turnover in comparison to the A.Y. 2011-12. The net profit declared by assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 is accepted by revenue though u/s. 143(1) and the said return of income filed by assessee has not been disturbed till date. Accordingly, when the Assessing Officer has not carried out any exercise to determine the proper and reasonable rate of net profit by considering the proper criteria/basis in the processed of estimating the income of the assessee after rejection of books of account then the rate of profit at 7% is highly ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
