TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er alternative except to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 91/Jodh/2020 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2023 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Rajindra Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR ORDER Per Shri Manish Borad, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Jodhpur dated 26-02-2020 for the assessment year 2000- 01 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ''1. That the appellate order dated 26-02-2020 passed by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition/disallowances made by the AO is bad in law and on facts. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the trading addition of Rs.30,91,677/- made by the AO for the relevant assessment year which otherwise is fully liable to be deleted. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,16,046/- for peak credit made by the AO for the relevant assessment year otherwise is fully liable to be deleted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 753/- for the whole year to which the above unrecorded receipts of Rs. 5304750 had to be added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, total receipts for the year were worked out at Rs. 1,50,40,503/-. The assessee has shown color chemical consumption of Rs. 29,35,615/- against the recorded job receipts of Rs. 97,35,753/- giving rate of consumption of 30.75% against 12.75% of such expense shown in the previous year. The Assessing Officer noted that the declared GP by the assessee is very low in such line of work. Other firm M/s. Surveyshwar Process House, Balotra had shown GP of 36.31% for the similar work during the year. Whereas the appellant had shown GP of 29.25%. in the A.Y. 1998-99. In A. Y. 1999-2000 the GP was taken at 25% considering the past history of case and comparative GP rate of similar work it was considered reasonable to adopt the GP for current year also, equal to last year @ 25%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer worked out and made addition of Rs. 30,79,671/- to the total income of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceeding the AR of the appellant submitted written submission vide which it was stated that the assessee was engaged in the job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash book found at the time of the survey proceedings and therefore there is no question of determining the income in an otherwise manner in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Raj. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog (2001) 26 TW 205 (Raj.). Further submitted that, on the other side, the AO, first of all determined the income on the basis of the result estimated on GP rate basis and compared it with the results as reflected in the common cash book/gate passes and other incriminating documents found during survey on 21.12.1999. The AO applied a GP rate of 25% as in the preceding Asst Year. The AO did not consider the submissions of the appellant explaining the reasons for fall in the GP rate which was stated to be mainly attributed to the use of own chemicals in the job work as against the fact that the chemicals were used to be supplied by the parties for which the job work is carried out in the preceding year. It was stated by the appellant that the use of own chemical was started in the immediately preceding Asst year and this fact was duly brought to the notice of the AO but no enquiry whatsoever was made in this connection. It was submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the moneys withdrawn from the common cash book and deposited into the bank account in the regular books of accounts as reflected from the common cash book and the regular cash book being produced before you're the undersigned. Since the money has been withdrawn from the common cash book and utilized in depositing the same into the assessee's bank account as clearly mentioned in the narration of the common cash and therefore to that extent the job receipts have been shown twice i.e. first when received and credited into the common cash book and secondly at the time of depositing the same into bank account in the regular books of accounts. The entries of job receipts in common cash book and regular cash book were either in the same name at some places and in different name at other places in the regular cash book. In view of the above position, the total receipts of Rs. 5891953/- was accordingly reduced by Rs.2531294/- while filing the return of income and since at the time asst, proceedings the above figure was calculated at Rs.2529587/-, the same was claimed to be reduced from the total income determined by the AO but the same was negative by the AO for no reason and by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the past history of the case and comparative GP of similar work, the Assessing Officer has correctly accepted GP for the current year equal to last year @ 25%. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the this case wherein duplicate set of book had been caught, the appellant's contention of relying on such dubious transactions in the manner he wishes, cannot be accepted. I find that the assessee himself shown GP of 29.25% and 25% in the AY 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Thus, considering the factual and legal position as discussed above and keeping in view the nature and volume of appellant's business, the AO's action of applying GP rate @ 25% is upheld. Which in my view, having followed the due rationale, is quite reasonable. This addition does not appear to be on higher side either. Hence, the same is sustained. The ground no. 2 is dismissed. 3.2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the trading addition of Rs.30,91,677/- which needs to be deleted. 3.3. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO. 3.4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that total receipt as per Ex 8 and 10 are at Rs. 1,26,63,692/- and total expenses of Rs. 35,36,371/-. The bank receipts in these exhibits of common cash book of all sister concerns of the assessee were at Rs. 53,62,809/- which were claimed to be shown in regular books of the assessee company and sister concern. Thus, the difference or receipts excluding expenses and bank transactions shown in common cash book comes at Rs. 37,64,512/-. Thus, 37,64,512/- was net profit as per Ex-8 and 10. The common cash book period 16.11.1999 to 30.11.1999 was not available with the assessee but the working of debits and credits recorded list was prepared by the appellant. In the difference between in total credits and total debits of Rs. 2,31,480/- (9,17,120-6,85,640) was taken net income of the appellant up to date of the survey and the total worked out at Rs. 39,95,992/- (37,64,512 2,31,480), during the course of assessment proceeding the AR further claimed that in sum of Rs. 39,95,992/- non trading entries of Rs. 15,55,315/- are also included which were been considered in peak calculation. On examination of the books the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
