TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l.CIT, Respondent by: Shri Mihir Bandyopadhyay, A.R. ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini, A. M. The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (A) -XII, Kolkata in appeal No.18/XII/Cir-40/13-14 dated 21/10/2013, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ), dated 08/03/ 2013. 2. The facts of the case are stated in brief. The return of income declaring income of ₹ 20,22,040/- had been filed on 15.10.2010, which is processed under section 143(1) on 26.05.2011. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Since the assessee has shown the net loss, therefore, the AO made the addition based on the net profit shown by its branches. The ld. AO made the addition based on estimated net profit and aggrieved from the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition observing the following: 5.1.3. Decision: I have considered the facts of the case, the finding in the assessment order, the report of the Assessing Officer as well as the submissions and arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant. The case of the Assessing Officer is that the net profit declared by the appellant in the Head Office business was comparatively less than that declared in Pune Branch and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead Office has been Tata Motors, who had shown to have made heavy deductions on account of short weight and non-ferrous contents in the iron scrap. The business conditions being dissimilar, it could not be said that the cases of Pune branch and Head Office could not be said to be identical and profit margin similar. (iii) The Assessing Officer has not doubted the purchases. He has not called for the accounts of the appellant with Tata Sons and verified the same before arriving at the conclusion that out of total purchases of scrap, only inferior quality of scrap was supplied to Tata Sons. Having not carrying out such exercise, and having not found any adverse results, the Assessing Officer was not justified in jumping to the conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weight to the company, M/s Tata Sons. The appellant has given sufficient reasons for the low profit shown this year in respect of the supply of M.S. scrap to Tata Sons. As regards the past history of case, it is seen that the assessment of the appellant for assessment year 2009-10 had been completed under scrutiny, where the facts are more or less similar, and the books of account were not rejected. (vii) In Jindal Aluminium Ltd. v. Deputy CCT.( 1999) 115 STC 257, 278 (Karn)] , it has been held that the books maintained by an assessee in the regular course of business are the prima facie proof unless they are proved false by any other material on record. The assessment cannot be made on the basis of personal opinion . In the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely because stock register is not maintained, books of a/cs cannot be rejected. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgements in the cases of Ashoke Refractories (P) Ltd v. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 457(Cal); ACIT v. Ravi Agricultural lndustries (2009) 316.1TR. AT (Agra). In view of the facts of the case, principles of the case laws discussed above, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of account of the Head Office of the appellant and applying a net profit rate of 7.23% shown in branch account. The consequent addition to the trading results is hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed. 3. Not being satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
