TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from business of running a wine shop in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Wines. The assessing officer, in the course of assessment proceedings under S.143(3) of the Act, found that that the assessee during the previous year made purchases of ₹ 6,13,05,766 from APBCL and has shown sales at ₹ 6,35,67,253. He further noted that as per G.O.Ms. No.184 dated 7.2.2005 issued by the Revenue authorities of Government of Andhra Pradesh, the retailer s margin, i.e. gross profit, on sale of ordinary liquor products is 27% and on medium and on premium varieties of liquor the same is 20%. He further noted that such margin on beer is 25%. He also noted that the cost of goods sold in the case of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s line of business at 3% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year, would be reasonable. In this view of the matter, following the consistent view taken by this Tribunal in similar caes, we set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities, and direct the assessing officer to estimate the net profit of the assessee at 3% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year, subject to the condition that the income so estimated shall not go below the returned income. Consequently, first ground of the assessee in this appeal is partly allowed. 7. Grounds No.2 of the assessee in this appeal read as follows- 2. The assessing officer and CIT(A) both erred on facts and law in treating the cash gift of ₹ 16,50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has any source of income, apart from his retail business in liquor. The business income of the assessee, having been determined by the assessing officer, by resorting to estimation, on rejection of book results, as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions (supra), there is no scope for any other addition being made by the assessing officer separately. Notwithstanding that, it is also found from the impugned orders of the lower authorities that the person from whom the assessee has claimed to have received the gift is identifiable and had a distinct and definite source of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
