Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 917

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1) "The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Assessing officer rejecting books of accounts without appreciating that books of accounts are duly audited and non-maintenance of the stock register cannot be a ground for rejecting books of accounts and further the Ld CIT(A) did not deal with various submissions of the Assessee regarding inconsistencies in invoices etc of third parties etc and Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate said third parties were never summoned by the Assessing Officer and hence the rejection of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, vide assessment order dated 30/03/2016 the Assessing total income of the Appellant at INR 80,79,450/-. The Assessing Officer rejected books of account of the Appellant and computed gross profit at the rate of 22.5% of aggregate turnover of INR 25,81,89,761/- reflected in the books of accounts after granting the benefit of gross profit already declared by the Appellant amounting to INR 4,84,84,653/- the Assessing Officer made in addition of INR 96,08,043/-. (5,80,92,696 - 4,84,84,653). 5. Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). In the written submission, dated 06/01/2023, filed before the CIT(A) it was contending on behalf of the Appellant as under :- "That appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 10-11, Where assessee himself had declared gross profit in excess of 25%, he made adhoc disallowance of 20% of purchases of month of February 2010 & March 2010 and for A.Y. 2013-14 he did not segregate total turnover of assessee into turnover of wafer/dry snacks and turnover of edible oil and simply applied gross profit rate of 22.5% to entire turnover. ........" (Emphasis Supplied) However, the CIT(A) was not convinced and therefore, declined to grant any relief to the Appellant. Thus, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16/05/2023. 6. Being aggrieved the Appellant has now prefer the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 7. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 09/01/2023, file before CIT(A) and submissions dated 29/03/2016 file before the Assessing Officer. 8. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative place reliance upon and Assessing Officer and CIT(A). However the Learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the averments made by the Learned Authorized Representative of the Appellant which was supported by the submissions filed before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) [place before us as part of the paper-book]. 9. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. On perusal of Financial Statement for the relevant previous year, we find that the aggregate revenue from operations stood at INR 25,81,89,761/- and the same consisted of (a) rev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... afer & farsan. As regards, the business of trading in edible oil, the contention of the Appellant that the Appellant had offered to tax gross profits at the rate of INR 5.6% which were higher than the average industry gross profit rate of 3.25% was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, no addition was warranted in the hand of the Appellant. Our view draws support from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Vs. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co.: [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bombay). 10. In view of the above, we delete the addition of INR.96,08,043/- made by the Assessing Officer. Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant is allowed. Since we have allowed Ground No. 2 & 3, Ground .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates