9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 260- A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.12.2012 in ITA No.192/Alld/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 has been pressed on following questions of law:- (1) Whether the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,42,93,157/- made on account of extra profit addition in gross profit without appreciating the fact that the assessee was not maintaining regular books of account specially the stock register. (2) Whether the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,42,93,157/- made on account of extra profit addition in gross profit without appreciating the fact that the A.O. has specifically rejected the books of account in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the department arise for consideration in this case. The facts giving rise to this appeal are stated in paragraph 4 as follows:- 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act hereinafter) was conducted in the residential and business premises of M/s Carpet International, M/s Carpet International Pvt. Ltd., Bhadohi, its Directors, its partners, its sister concerns and other group cases on 11.12.2009. The Warrants of authorization for search of residential and business premises were issued by the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kanpur on 03.02.2009 20.02.2009. During the course of search, loose papers, documents, FDRs and computers, etc., as per Annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The CIT (A) did not agree with the A.O. for addition on merit after applying flat profit rate of 15%. He did not agree with the assessee that the addition made by A.O. is beyond the purview of Section 153A of the Act. The Tribunal has observed in para 38 of its judgment that during the course of search or post search or at the time of assessment proceedings or otherwise no material was found on which 15% enhancement in profit rate can be said to be justified. The A.O. while making addition on flat rate of 15% in the gross profit did not follow the established guidelines in estimating the income. He did not rely on any comparable case in support of his estimation nor gave any justification to reject the comparable cases cited by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
