TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparative cases and other factors that are relevant to determine the real income of the assessee. CIT(A) has followed the correct and reasonable approach in estimating the profit on the suppressed turnover worked out by the AO which has not been questioned by the assessee. Revenue except for raising the ground has not been able to contravene the finding of the learned CIT(A) and we are,therefore, no interference is called for in the finding of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order on this issue. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.1106(B)/2014 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2015 - SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT For the Respondent : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was determined at ₹ 54,55,490/- as against the declared income of ₹ 34,140/- in view of the AO bringing to tax in the assessee s hands the difference in turnover of eggs computed by him at ₹ 54,21,353/- (viz.Rs. 1,80,38,064/- less ₹ 1,26.16711/-). 3. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment for assessment year 2011-12 dated 28-03-2014, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Hubli. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions put forth before the AO. It was also alternatively submitted at ground no.5, that the entire suppressed turnover cannot be regarded as income. The learned CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide order dated 10-06-2014 allowing the assessee partial relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpute the income of the assessee on account of the suppression of turnover, by applying the gross profit rate of 18% on the quantum of suppressed sales amounting to ₹ 54,21,353/- is erroneous. It is submitted that the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that there were expenses incurred in relation to the suppressed production of eggs. In view of the above, the learned DR prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and the suppressed turnover worked about by the AO be regarded as income of the assessee. 5.2 Per contra, the learned AR strongly supported the finding of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order. 5.3.1 We have heard both parties and perused carefully considered the material on record. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s turnover is around ₹ 3,80,000/-. 4. Raghava Poultry Farm, Mogalahaili,MolakalmuruTq. The said firm has declared the Gross profit @9.04% and the said firm's turnover is around ₹ 9 crores. 5. Raghavendra Poultry Farm,Kodahalli, ChallakereTq. The said firm has declared the Gross profit @9.50% and the said firm's turnover is around ₹ 8 crores. The comparable cases of Gross profit earned by the above said poultry farms ranged between 9 to 12% and they are all assessed to tax under Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the above comparable cases the Gross profit between 9 to 12% may kindly be considered. The Hon'ble ITAT, Ahemdabad Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Gurubachan Singh Juneja reported in 216 ITR 99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO had drawn adverse inference against claim of assessee and assessed income for relevant assessment year treating transaction with the absentee traders as having been done by assessee in capacity of trader and not as 'commission agent'. There is truth in the contention of the assessee whenever the sales were made outside the books of accounts or the sales are not reflected in the regular books of accounts only the GP has to be taken to the total income but not entire sales. The sales represents the purchase value and element of profit. The same anology was upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 it was held that The Amount of sales cannot be represent the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts on record in respect of the issue before us, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid conclusion of the learned CIT(A) (Supra) appears to be in order. It is well settled law that the entire amount of sale does not represent income of the assessee. It is only a price received by the seller of the goods and only the realization over cost that can be the profit. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned CIT(A) has relied upon by the judgments of the ITO Vs Gurubachan Singh Juneja (216 ITR 99 (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT Vs S.M.Omar (201 ITR 608) (Cal.) Anis Ahmed Sons Vs CIT (297 ITR 441) (SC) and CIT Vs President Industries (258 ITR 654) (Guj.), which has been approved by the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
