TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stimation basis and in determining the profit on estimation basis, the past history plays a vital role. As contended by the Ld. Counsel, the net profit rate of 1.5% sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is on higher side in view of the past history. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel that 1.5% profit rate estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) is on higher side. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee and modify the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restrict the net profit rate to 1% of the gross receipts, which is more than the percentage in the last 3 years. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the addition @ 1% of the gross receipts. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer with regard to rejection of books of accounts and which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred estimating the net profit rate of 1.5% on the gross receipts against 2% applied by the Assessing Officer without pin pointing any defect in the records. 3. That all the relevant records were produced before the Assessing Officer as per para 5 of the order of Assessing Officer and the reply reproduced in para-6 of the order of Assessing Officer has not been considered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 145(3) due to non-production of vouchers by the assessee. However, the ITAT deleted the addition holding that the rejection of books of account without pointing out any specific defect is not sustainable. Alternatively, the Ld. counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has estimated the net profit @ 1.5 of the gross receipts of the assessee which is unreasonable and on higher side. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxminarain Badridas 5 ITR170 (SC) and the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gupta KN Construction Company, 371 ITR 291(Raj) submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut taking into consideration the past history of the case of the assessee and that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account of the assessee without assigning any reasons. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, in the past three years, the gross commission of the total receipts remained below 1% and the Ld. CIT(A) has determined the addition @ 1.5% and as per settled law when the books of account are rejected, the profit is determined on estimation basis and in determining the profit on estimation basis, the past history plays a vital role. As contended by the Ld. Counsel, the net profit rate of 1.5% sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is on higher side in view of the past history. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
