TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly been applied by the ld CIT(A). After examining the defect, the ld CIT(A) came to conclusion that 20.72% G.P. rate is applicable in assessee’s case on enhanced sale. Therefore, the ld CIT(A) has thoroughly analysed the remand report and assessee’s submissions, which has not been controverted by the ld DR. Therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against revenue Unexplained loan - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence even without passing order on admitting the additional evidence in his order. The assessee had not furnished any evidence before the Assessing Officer as he was non-cooperative at the time of assessment proceedings. Even creditors are assessed with the same As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return on 30/09/2009 declaring income of ₹ 4,42,210/-. The ex parte order U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was passed by the Assessing Officer. The ld Assessing Officer issued notice U/s 143(2) of the Act on 28/09/2010 and fixing the case for hearing on 18/10/2010. The assessee sought adjournment on that date. The Assessing Officer again issued notice U/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated 16/5/2011 and case was fixed for 02/6/2011. Again the assessee sought adjournment and case was adjourned for 16/6/2011. On 16/6/2011, Shri R. C. Sharma, Advocate attended and filed written submission before the Assessing Officer, which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer on page No. 2 of the assessment order. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. Further the assessee had shown closing stock of ₹ 38,23,004/- but no stock inventory of closing stock filed or produced for verification, which was also not subject to verification. In absence of complete books and vouchers, the sale of the assessee was estimated at ₹ 1.05 crores as sale disclosed by the assessee at ₹ 1,02,15,340/-and applied the GP rate @ 25.35% as declared by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 12,15,775/- was made by the Assessing Officer in the trading result. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal partly by observing that profit had to be worked out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failure to maintain itemwise stock register, books of accounts cannot be rejected unless there is a finding or opinion either that record were incomplete or that method of accounting employed was such that income could not be deduced from accounts maintained by assessee. The assessee in immediately preceding year declared total sales of ₹ 89,12,360/- wherein gross profit was ₹ 16,11,415/- giving G.P. rate of 18.08% while in this year the assessee declared total sales of ₹ 1,02,15,340/- on which gross profit is ₹ 18,46,175/- giving G.P. rate of 18.07%. Thus the assessee on enhanced sale declared same G.P. rate as of last year. The Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the same case of Kansara Bearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 270 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee did not produce complete books of account with vouchers for verification by the assessee as the assessment was made U/s 144 of the Act. However, the ld CIT(A) had called for remand report from the Assessing Officer, who has proposed the G.P. rate after verification of the certain bills @ 30.73% as against 25.35% applied by the Assessing Officer. However, the ld CIT(A) found defect in the computation of G.P. rate, which was calculated on purchases bill but as per accountancy, the G.P. rate is always calculated on sale, which has rightly been applied by the ld CIT(A). After examining the defect, the ld CIT(A) came to conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer himself. Master Vaidik Sharma is minor son of the assessee, who had opening balance of ₹ 4,04,015/- and received rental income at ₹ 3,15,013/- during the year under consideration. Being minor, the income of Master Vaidik Sharma has been clubbed in the assessee s income and same has been offered for taxation. Therefore, he allowed the appeal. 9. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the ld CIT(A) had not provided opportunity to the Assessing Officer but accepted all the evidences furnished by the assessee. Therefore, he prayed to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10. At the outset, the ld AR of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
