TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection. Even if this has been rectified then also we feel that such ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out as to what was the details called for which were not submitted, is not justified. - Decided against revenue - ITA Nos. 2515 & 2516/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2015 - SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Respondent : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, Sr DR For the Petitioner : Shri S. N. Soparkar, AR ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad, both dated 01.08.2015 for Assessment Years 2008-09 2009-10. Since both these appeals pertain to same assessee and almost identical issues were raised in these appeals; therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 2515/Ahd/2012 : AY 2008-09 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. The Item of Lignite is being mainly purchased from GMDC, a Govt. of Gujarat concern. So far another major item of steam-coal, the assessee purchases these from open market in bulk from importer and sales it to his customers in truck load. The gross profit in this item is disclosed at 10.88% against preceding year's G.P. of 17.47% on total sales of ₹ 9,33,89,929/- and ₹ 4,25,01,700/- respectively. Sales were increased to almost double. 6.2. As stated above and regarding readability of gross profit, it may be stated that the assessee had never furnished the elaborate details/datas of his trading business in the past. Therefore, it is possible for the first time to make analytical study in order to reach to the possible reasonable estimate of the profit, in absence of such data in the past, even appellate authority had also reduced the addition of gross profit on adhoc basis only. Therefore, the exercise is being done for estimating correct gross profit on the basis of data furnished by the assessee. From the above data, small sales items are excluded from the discussion since these have no much impact on overall gross profit corresponding to the huge t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails as well as addresses of the payee. Also the payments were made only in cash and kept always below ₹ 20,000/-. On single day huge cash payments were made, in earlier years also the assessee had applied same modus operandi and thereby it was noticed at the time of verification and survey operation earner] out in this case that expenses are not subject to check and cross verification. Therefore on a reasonable estimate 10% of such expense i.e. ₹ 6,95,799/- is disallowed for want of full complete verifiable details of the parties to whom this transportation (Noor Jakat) was to be paid as done in the past as same set of facts prevails. Accordingly, an addition of ₹ 6,95,799/- is made to the total income of the assessee on this count. 2.3. Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee and having considered the same, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 10,45,770/- made on account of estimation of Gross Profit and the disallowance of ₹ 6,95,799/- made on account of transportation charges i.e. Noor Jakat. The same has been opposed on behalf of the Revenue inter alia s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t required due to substantial trading in lignite during the year. The reasons given by the appellant is based on evidences. Thus, we allow the appeal of the assessee on both grounds. 2.4 Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of Revenue. Facts being similar, following the same reasoning as mentioned in the aforesaid case for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 as discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 10,47,770/- made on account of estimation of Gross Profit; accordingly, the same is upheld. 3. With regard to the second issue regarding the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 6,95,799/- made on account of transportation charges (Noor Jakat), it was brought to our knowledge that this issue was also covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case in ITA Nos.2835/Ahd/2008 2937/Ahd/2009 for AYs 2005-06 2006-07, wherein similar issue was decided as under:- 2.4.3 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that it is noted by the A.O. on page 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
