TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the process, after taking into consideration the overall material before it, had estimated the income at 7.5% of the gross receipts. The view taken by the AO being a plausible one and even assuming there was another view possible, the CIT(Appeal) could not have invoked the revisional power under Section 263 of the Act, as it is well-settled that such ground is not available for revising the orders. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal had examined the material on record and did not accept the argument of the Revenue that the rentals from the godowns are required to be assessed at a higher rate of 12.5%. AO had opined that renting of the godowns is integral in the business of the assessee and as the decision arrived at by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ental receipts is far below that in relation to civil contract receipts? ( b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was justified in placing reliance on the ratio of decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Gracim Industries Ltd. V. CIT (321 ITR 92) which dealt with entirely different facts relating to cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act and which had no contextual relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case? The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of stevedoring, clearing and forwarding, shore handling and steamer agency services. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was worked out at 10%. The AO also accepted the explanation of the assessee, for the earlier years, that the stevedoring, clearing and forwarding activities are integrally connected with godown rentals and as the assessee had not maintained the books, the methodology of estimating the income was adopted. The same is an acceptable method and there is no error committed by the AO. The assessee had also relied on the orders of the Tribunal in Jeewanram Choudhary v. CIT (2013) 84 DTR (Jd)(Trib) 317 and Mookambica Constructions v. CIT (ITANo. 25/Vizag/2009, dated 13.11.2009) to support its contention that the Revision could not have been made and there is no error in the Assessment Orders. Even with respect to AY 2005-06, the methodology ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 263 of the Act cannot be made . In the absence of any other material placed before this Court, in the facts of the present case, question No.1 is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the light of the conclusion arrived at with respect to question No.1, question No.2 being a consequential one, it is not necessary for this Court to answer the same as, basically, it relates to the understanding and appreciation of the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which, in fact, had followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. v. CIT and the case of CIT v.MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
