TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is a combined one for seven years. This is indeed the case. In fact, the show cause to the assessee by the AO, is only as to the estimation of the net profit rate, proposed by him at 8% of the turnover, and not qua turnover, even as stated at para 4.1 of the impugned order. CIT(A) is thus clearly in the wrong when he says that the AO had estimated the turnover based on seized documents/material. The adopted figures for these years by the AO (at para 14.2 of the assessment order) is in complete agreement with that as per the assessee s audited accounts, clarifying the basis on which the AO has taken the turnover figures for all the three years, i.e., the audited accounts furnished by the assessee. There is accordingly no manner of any doubt that the turnover for AY 2010-11, as stated at para 14.2 of the assessment order, has been mistakenly so, and rightly rectified by the AO on being moved u/s. 154. In fact, where not so, the sharp and quantum reduction in the turnover for the subsequent two years, i.e., vis-a-vis AY 2010-11, ought to have itself engaged the mind of the Revenue authorities, which is not the case. Clearly, the AO made no attempt to estimate the turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact at ₹ 1,05,71,935, i.e., as per the audited accounts (PB pg. 30). The same was accepted by the AO vide order u/s. 154 dated 10.01.2019 (PB pgs. 54-55), revising the estimate of the business income to ₹ 4,22,877, being 4% of ₹ 105.72 lacs. The same was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee vide written submissions dated 14.01.2019/25.01.2019, contending for the said estimate being made with reference to the admitted turnover, i.e., ₹ 1,05,87,289, i.e., in terms of its Gd. 2 before him. The same was not accepted by the ld. CIT(A) who, after recording the assessee s contentions, including vide written submissions dated 14.01.2019/25.01.2019 (supra), as well as the AO s finding, held as under: 4.1 Ground No. 1 to 4:- Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of ₹ 43,25,223/- on account of undisclosed net profit. Order u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) has been passed in the case of above mentioned assessee on 22.12.2017. The order u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) has been passed because search and seizure action u/s 132 has been carried out in the case of appellant on 07.01.2016. During the course of search various in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover and net profit rate was adduced by the assessee before him, so that no relief was exigible to her. The assessee s grievance before us is only with regard to the turnover and not the net profit rate, estimated by the AO at 4% as against the returned 3.6%. 4.2 The only issue qua turnover is whether the same stands estimated by the AO, and which, where so, would only be on the basis of some material. We find no reference to any material, or in fact any discussion qua the estimation of the turnover, in the assessment order, and toward which we have perused it in its entirety; the relevant part thereof reading as under: 14.0 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling for books of account for AY 2010-11 to 2016-17. However, the assessee failed to produce the books of account pertaining to AY 2010-11 to 2016-17. Finally, the assessee was show-caused as to why the net profit rate shall not be computed at 8% and the books of account shall not be rejected. 14.1 In response to the show cause notice the assessee submitted that the assessee has maintained books of account for the AY 2010-11, 2015-16 2016-17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mphasis, ours) 4.3 The ld. CIT-DR, Ms. Neerja Pradhan, on being questioned in the matter by the Bench, fairly conceded that the incriminating material found during search was in respect of undisclosed investments and cash, for which separate additions and for other years, has been made by the AO per the impugned assessment order, which is a combined one for seven years. This is indeed the case. In fact, the show cause to the assessee by the AO, referred to at para 14.0 of his order, is only as to the estimation of the net profit rate, proposed by him at 8% of the turnover, and not qua turnover, even as stated at para 4.1 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) is thus clearly in the wrong when he says, at para 4.1 of his order, that the AO had estimated the turnover based on seized documents/material. In fact, as a matter of abundant caution, the Bench asked Sh. Ghai to produce the audited balance-sheets for the account years relevant to AYs. 2015-16 2016-17, for which years, again, the net profit of the assessee s liquor business has been uniformly estimated by the AO, and which was done by him by filing a supplementary Paper-Book on 04.02.2021, whereat the case was fixed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
