9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of Paints & Sanitary stores. He filed his return of income on 11.06.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 4,62,460/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the following reasons as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order :- 1. "Assessee has filed return of income for the A. Y. 2010-11 manually instead of filing electronically, being auditable case u/s 44 B. Assessee is engaged in Paints & sanitary business. The assessee has declared net profit of Rs. 6,05,122/- against gross receipts/ sales of Rs. 9,50,01,256/- showing net profit of Rs. 0.636%. There is a steep decline in net profit ratio as comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee made elaborate submissions based on which the Ld. CIT(A) deleted an amount of Rs. 2,40,59,190/-and sustained addition of Rs. 15,84,676/- by observing as under :- "7. The appellant himself admits that his earlier Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account are bogus and the books of accounts were never produced before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant's books of accounts should be rejected under section 145 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and appellant's income from business should be estimated. Since the assessment order says that the appellant's sales was Rs. 3,16,93,527/-, I am of the view that appellant's net profit can be reasonably estimated at 5% of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing of the appeal." 4. The assessee has also filed the cross objection by raising the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The appeal filed by the Department is misconceived, based on wrong facts which is also clear from the statements of Respondent and C. A. even the stock found does not support the grounds of the Appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in not admitting fresh evidence and thereby sustaining addition of Rs. 15,84,676/- which is arbitrary, unjustified and without any basis. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in not allowing deduction U/s 80C and 80D. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that due to wrong representation by the then coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 2,56,43,870/-by making various additions. We find the Ld. CIT (A) granted substantial relief to the assessee by estimating the net profit @ 5% of the turnover and sustained addition of Rs. 15,84,676/-. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to wrong representation of the then counsel for the assessee, the case was not properly handled and therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding various items of the profit and loss account and the balance sheet. 9. We find the order of the CIT (A) in the instant case is not a speaking order. Considering the totality of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
