TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : None ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the Order of the CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 27.08.2013 for the A.Y. 2008-2009. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 6 grounds on two issues i.e., rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profits. The case is posted for hearing and notice was sent through RPAD to assessee, but the same is returned un-served with a postal remark addressee not found . There is no intimation about change of address. Accordingly, after hearing the learned D.R. the case was decided ex-parte assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on the business of retail trade in liquor under the name and style of M/s. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put for sale during the year, whichever is more. Further, in estimating the profits, he directed that the income already offered by the assessee on such sales, may be taken into consideration, to avoid the duplication of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds : 1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the estimation of sales @ 27% of the cost of liquor put to sale as per Government of A.P. Prohibition Excise GOMs.184 dated 07.02.2005 and assessment of understatement of sales. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, we cannot adjudicate the same. Accordingly, the argument is rejected . 8. After considering the arguments of the learned D.R. we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) who followed the decisions of the coordinate Bench as stated above. In similar matters, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have been consistently directing adoption of rate of 5% of the purchase value or stock put to use whichever is more. The decision in the case of ITO, Warangal vs. Shri P. Ramaiah and others in ITA.No.1739/Hyd/2012 dated 21.03.2013 is as follows : 4. We have heard the parties present and perused the material on record in the light of the impugned orders of the CIT(A). We find that the issue involved in the present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
