TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure was allowed to the assessee - There was no justification for applying the GP rate of 38.77% on the figure of suppressed job charges, as canvassed on behalf of the Revenue - the entire job charges could not be subjected to the tax, as all the direct expenditure, which are essential part for earning gross job receipts charges have to be allowed to the assessee to arrive at a realistic and reasonable figure of profit on the suppressed job charges received by the assessee – Relying upon Commissioner of Income-tax Vs President Industries [1999 (4) TMI 8 - GUJARAT High Court] – there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in partly allowing the ground of the appeal of the assessee, and estimating the GP rate on the suppressed job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gross profit ratio of 28.44% to suppressed job work receipts by relying on the new evidences furnished by the assessee and without properly appreciating facts of the case, because the trial balance seized from the assessee during the course of search showed GP ratio of assessee at 38.77%" 5. The learned DR referred to relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He submitted that once a suppressed job charges are found by the department, the GP ratio as per the trial balance sheet seized from the assessee at 38.77% should have been applied to the total suppressed job charges for all three assessment years in appeal before the Tribunal. He referred to the relevant portions of the orders of the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of suppressed job charges for all three years in appeal before us. We find that in fact this GP rate applied by the CIT(A) on the suppressed job charges amounts to applying of net profit rate as no further deduction of expenditure was allowed to the assessee. There seems to be no justification for applying the GP rate of 38.77% on the figure of suppressed job charges, as canvassed on behalf of the Revenue. The Revenue could not show that how the GP rate of 38.77% has been arrived at and how the same is applicable to the suppressed job charges of the assessee. If the entire suppressed job work receipt is considered as suppressed income of the assessee, it will result in abnormally high percentage of GP, which will give unrealistic higher f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see, at the outset, submitted that the grounds in the COs. of the assessee for the assessment year 2008- 2009 to 2010-2011 are merely supportive the order of the CIT(A), and accordingly needs no separate adjudication. The learned DR supported the contentions of the learned counsel of the assessee. We have considered rival submissions. In view of the submissions of the parties, and the CO being merely supportive to the order of the CIT(A), we hold that it needs no separate adjudication, and accordingly the CO of the assessee for all three years are dismissed. 10. In the result, the three appeals of the Revenue and three COs of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
