TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ults during the year, over those for the earlier assessment year. The gross profit has gone up to 13.10% against 12.90% in the earlier year. In view thereof, the CIT (A) cannot be said to have erred in holding the addition made on estimate basis to be unjustified. In favour of assessee. - ITA No.5674/Del/2012, C.O. No.476/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2013 - Shri S. V. Mehrotra And Shri A. D. Jain,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri J. C. Kapoor, CA For the Respondent : Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR ORDER Per A. D. Jain, Judicial Member The appeal by the assessee and the Cross Objections by the department is for Assessment Year 2009-08 against the order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the CIT (A)-XXVIII, New Delhi. The Department has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce was furnished by the assessee in support of such claim; that the addition of Rs. 8 lac made on account of unverifiable purchases has also wrongly been deleted by the Ld. CIT (A), failing to appreciate that the claim of the assessee did not become admissible only due to the fact that the assessee's accounts were audited, whereas the claim made by the assessee remained entirely unsubstantiated. 4. Apropos the Cross Objections, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the addition of Rs. 11 lac comprising Rs. 3 lac on account of disallowance on labour expenses and Rs. 8 lac on account of disallowance on account of material expenses, was wholly unjustified and the same has been correctly deleted by the Ld. CIT (A); that the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments were authenticated by the recipients and there was no outstanding payments due to the labourers. The CIT (A) also observed that on a similar issue for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the assessee's case, the CIT (A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. 6. The ITAT, vide its order dated 15.06.2012 (supra) for Assessment Year 2008-09 upheld the CIT (A)'s action in restricting a similar disallowance to Rs. 1 lac. While doing so, it was observed that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any specific finding to reach the figure of disallowance of Rs. 3 lac, which was an ad hoc addition made, ignoring the fact that the percentage of labour wages to gross turnover had come down to 13.73% for that year (Assessment Year 2008-09) as agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
