TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, 2180/H/10 2006- 07, 1580/H/10 2004- 05 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri V. Raghavendra Rao For the Respondent : Sri D. Sudhakar Rao ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, AM: All these appeals pertaining to one assessee, are directed against the orders of CIT(A) by the assessee as well as revenue and the assessee also filed cross objections. As identical issues are involved in these appeals and Cos, the same are clubbed and heard together, therefore, a common order is passed for the sake of convenience. ITA NOS. 1038, 1039, 1040 1041/HYD/2010 AND C.O. NOS. 9, 10, 11 12/Hyd/2011 - by Assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08. 2. These appeals and C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck the unexplained investment of Rs. 92,54,205/-. 5. While examining the profitability returned by the assessee firm on the sale of flats, the Assessing Officer had observed that except the vouchers impounded as bundle No. 7 containing serial no. 1 to 225 during the course of survey u/s 133A, all other vouchers furnished during the assessment proceedings were all self made vouchers and hence not reliable. He had also relied on the observation during the search that books of account were not made available to the search team but they were furnished later during the assessment proceedings only and hence came to a conclusion that the same were not reliable. The Assessing Officer had assailed the method of accounting adopted by the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e while nothing is commented about 225 vouchers impounded. Moreover, this observations is extended or extrapolated to all assessment years on a blanket mode and Assessing Officer resorted to rejecting books of account. This manner of rejecting books is incorrect as it is a duty cast upon the Assessing Officer to demonstrate the books are defective. Nor this gives a right of way to extend the rejection of books to all assessment years without finding objects in books of respective assessment years. 7.2 There is lot of strength in the appellant's arguments that the estimation of profits be based upon reasonable comparison but the Assessing Officer has not brought any such comparable cases while harping upon 28% net profit but he had relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as under: "6.4............ I am not inclined to accept that the ratio in the case of HM Esuf HM Abdul Ali supra is applicable to the given facts of the case as the Assessing Officer could not establish any escaped turnover or escaped receipts. The reasoning given by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the books of account is thoroughly shaky and nothing has been brought on record to substantiate that the true profits cannot be deducted therefrom as held in the case of Krishnaswamy Mudaliar supra. Moreover, it is incorrect to apply the findings in AY 2006-07, however, shaky they are, to the proceedings in all other three assessment years in question without examining the respective accounts and their reliability. Thus, the rejection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon order passed by the CIT(Central), Hyderabad dated 25/03/2011 u/s 263 of the IT Act, relating to the Assessment Years 2004-05 2006-07. 16. These appeals become infructuous as we have confirmed the order of CIT(A), dated 14/05/2010 for AY 2004- 05 and 2006-07 (supra) wherein the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order. Being so, the order passed by the CIT u/s 263, dated 25/03/2011 does not have legs to stand in the eye of law in view of principles of Doctrine of Merger. Therefore, these two appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. 17. In the result, these two appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 1580/Hyd/2012 by the assessee for AY 2004-05. 18. This is an appeal emanated fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
