9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the turnover has been accepted by the ld. CIT(A), then there is no justification of applying such a huge profit rate of 50% and since assessee has opted for presumptive taxation u/s. 44AD, then 8% as provided in the statute is liable to be accepted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Amit Shukla , Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri. Devang Divecha For the Revenue : Shri. P.D. Chougule ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 07/12/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In the aforesaid case the assessee had declared income from transaction in derivatives (fut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee's PAN works out to Rs. 5,24,27,992/ and based on the assessee's submission to work out profit @ 8% u/s. 44AD, the same comes to Rs. 41,94,239/-. The assessee's working as reported in the order sheet notings dated 21.11.2017 and submission dated 13.08.2016 is Rs. 42,61,003/ on which profit @ 8% is shown at Rs. 3,40,880.24. The profit as per transaction recorded in the stock exchange works out to Rs. 41,94,239/-. Thus, based on the facts and admission of the assessee/AR the difference of Rs. 38,53,359/- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated. The assessee's AR has neither filed any computation of income wherein the total income of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared as NIL. Moreover, the assessee couldn't reconcile the total transactions of Rs. 5,24,27,992/- during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings. Considering the above discrepancies, it would be reasonable to estimate the profit @ 50% of the total turnover i.e. Rs. 42,61,003/- and that comes out to Rs. 21,30,501.5. So the addition of Rs. 17,89,621.26 is confirmed and the appellant get relief of Rs. 20,63,738/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 5. After considering the aforesaid finding given in the impugned order, first of all, we find that ld. AO has made addition without sharing any information about the alleged transaction available on the system. The ld. CIT(A) on the other hand had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
