TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of Gross Profit will not arise, in our view, while considering the case of other sister concerns or units, the Tribunal has rightly analysed the facts and figures and has rightly held in favour of the assessee. We are in agreement with the same and accordingly we answer the question of law holding that in the facts on record, the Tribunal has rightly deleted the entire addition of ₹ 3,23,01,330/- made on account of unaccounted income generated by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 1412 of 2005 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 1413 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR MR BHATT, SR ADVOCATE WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO had made wrong comparisons and drawn wrong inferences on the basis of presumption. The CIT (Appeals), after considering the case of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by order dated 10/08/2004, which was challenged by the assessee as well as by the department before the ITAT and the ITAT vide its order dated 28/02/2005, impugned in these appeals, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee and against the department, giving rise to present appeals. 3. Heard, the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3.1 Counsel for the appellant Mr. Bhatt pointed out that CIT (Appeals), while considering the case of the assessee, has observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) appears to have made a huge addition on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. 3.2 He submitted that, while considering the same, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the reasoning adopted by the CIT (Appeals). He, therefore, contended that the appeal, at least of the department qua allowing the appeal of the assessee is required to be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Soparkar, counsel for the respondent, drew our attention to para 11 and 12 of the order of the ITAT. For ready perusal, the same are extracted hereunder: 11. We have duly considered the rival contentions. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected the book results of the assessee mainly on the ground that it has shown consumption on fuel disproportionately very high than the other simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... worked out in output ratio. The assessee has been using different types of fuel electricity as well as DG set whereas, other concerns have been using electricity motors. The Gross Profit of these concerns is lower than that of the assessee. Hence, if we examine all the details, shown to us during the arguments and whose cognizance have been taken by us, then their settings as a whole would show that result of these concerns are not comparable and rejection of assessee's book results on this analysis is not appropriate. 12. The next reason taken by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the book result of the assessee is that sales and purchases are not verifiable. This inquiry has been initiated by the Assessing Officer at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this Court. Relevant portion of the decision of this Court in Vikram Plastics (supra) is extracted hereunder: Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants has taken us through the relevant material on record. It was contended by him that the provisions of Section 145(2) of the said Act were rightly invoked by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal ought not to have taken a different view of the matter. In this regard, we note that the Tribunal has specifically considered the provisions of Section 145 in paragraph 7.3 of its order and after noticing the approach of the Assessing Officer it found that there was no defect or discrepancy pointed out specifically in the books of accounts maintained. The Tribunal reiterated in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no method of regular accounting employed, the Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 145(2) could not be invoked. This conclusion is based on findings of fact and raises no question of law. 5. The common question of law, which was posed for consideration of this Court while admitting these appeals, is as follows: Whether the Appellate Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts on record and thereby deleted the entire addition of ₹ 3,23,01,330/- made on account of unaccounted income generated by the assessee, and finding is perverse? 6. On appreciating the arguments advanced by both the sides, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
