9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reject appellant's ground for arbitrary reopening of assessment without there being any discussion in his body of order. 2. Ld. CIT(A), Valsad has erred in law and on facts in condoning short delay of 144 days occurred by the appellant in filing of 1st appeal before him. 3. Ld. CIT(A), Valsad has erred in law and on facts to upheld A.O.'s estimation of profit at 12% by incorrectly applying provisions of Section 44AF/44AD of the Act." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the case of assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded the reasons that as per information gathered, ITD System, the assessee deposited cash amount of Rs. 18,14,000/- with bank account in HDFC Bank, Valsad. The AO on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maida comes to Rs. 2,100/- and the sale consideration on production of 90 kg of Maida is Rs. 2,430/-, therefore, the profit of the assessee is Rs. 13.58%. The AO, accordingly issued the show the profit of assessee may not be assessed @ 13.58%. The assessee filed its reply dated 10.08.2017. In the reply the assessee submitted that while recording his statement he could not give proper answer and the figure of percentage of profit is erroneous and his profit would be 6%. The copy of show cause notice under reply of assessee is recorded in para 5 & 6 of the assessment order respectively [in Gujarati Language]. The AO on the basis of his observation that assessee has not produced the bills of purchase or sales, the AO estimated profit @12% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013] 355 ITR 0172 and decision of Hon'ble High Court in Jet Airways (331 ITR 236 Bombay). 6. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the ld. AO made addition @12% of turnover of sales shown by assessee. At one hand the AO has rejected the books of accounts and on the other hand, he is relying on same set books for making estimated addition. There was no basis of estimation @12% net Profit (NP) without bringing comparable instances on record. The ld. AR submits that in subsequent year, the AO made addition @ 6%. The ld. AR furnished the sales from A.Y. 2010-11 to 2014-15 and Gross Profit and Net Profit ratio varying from 4.11% to 2.21% in the following manner: A.Y. SALES G.P.[Rs.] G.P.% N.P.[Rs.] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 9,077/-. We find that there is no discussion about the addition of income from other sources in the assessment order. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the ld. AO has not made addition on the basis of reasons of reopening. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Mohmed Juned Dadani (supra) held that when on ground of which reopening of assessment was made by AO, he could not have made addition and some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. 9. We find that similar view that taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT (336 ITR 136 Delhi). Therefore, in view of the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
