TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar items of trade. The Assessing Officer in this case has compared the G.P rate declared by M/s Jagat Singh & Sons, which were not confronted to assessee. The Ld. AR has further submitted that a trader situated next door to him had declared a lower G.P rate which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer who should confront the trading results of M/s Jagat Singh and Sons to the assessee and should also consider the trading results of M/s S H Traders, and after examination of the trading results of these persons should calculate the income by applying the appropriate rate. Needless to say that assessee will be provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. (vi) That in any case the addition of ₹ 2,59,117/- deserves to be deleted. (v) That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 3. The brief facts of the case as noted in the assessment order are that the assessee is a partnership firm doing business of trading of hardware goods . The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that audit report filed with return of income mentioned that no quantitative details were furnished to auditors and therefore, he held that since audit report did not give any information regarding the quantitative details of opening stock, purchases and sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer, however, observed that G.P rate of few items were raising from 9.74% to 10.66%. The Assessing Officer further observed that a similar firm M/s Jagat Singh Sons dealing in similar activities had declared 10.51% of G.P. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account of assessee and estimated the G.P by taking a G.P rate of 10.51% and addition on account of difference in G.P declared by assessee and calculated by Assessing Officer to the tune of ₹ 2,59,117 was made. 4. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) and filed various submissions. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the arguments of assessee and upheld the addition made by Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the present case as in that case lumpsum addition was made whereas in the present case the addition was made after comparing trading results of M/s. Jagat Singh Sons. We find that during the assessment proceedings, the assesee had not provided quantitative details of opening and closing stock and purchase and sales. From the nature of activity of the assessee, we find that maintenance of day to day stock register is quite difficult in this case. Though the quantitative details of opening and closing stock, purchase and sales help the Assessing Officer to determine the true income but in the absence of such records the best way out to determine the income of assessee is to compare the results with the earlier years a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
