TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntuality, the history of comparables has been treated as a good guidance by the courts - in the given case, when the history of the assessee itself exists, there is no need to jump the gun and ignore its past history. We hold that the results shown during the year under consideration being better than the results shown in the immediately preceding A.Y., there is no reason to make any further addition on this count. Accordingly, we order to delete the entire addition made in the trading results disclosed by the assessee and more particularly, to delete the impugned addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) - we allow Ground No. 1 of this appeal. Income from other sources - addition has been made because the assessee has shown interest inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted against the order of ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur, Rajasthan, dated 08.11.2013. 2. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and looking to the past history of case and judicial decisions cited the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining an addition of ₹ 44,89,631/- in the income declared from contract business. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding the income from interest amounting to ₹ 12,84,137/- liable to be assessed separately even after holding the same as income from business which is not a separate source of income liable to be taxed separately and is to be considered as part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant-firm has not assailed the rejection of books of account, but on merits, the impugned addition has been challenged on the ground that even after rejection of books as per settled legal position, the past history of the assessee has to be adopted. It was argued by the ld. A.R. that during year under consideration, that is, 2010-11, the assessee has disclosed gross profit rate of 5.35% and net profit rate of 1.85% as the receipts had declined but in the immediately preceding year, the gross profit rate of 2.88% and net profit rate of 0.06% were disclosed. Therefore, according to him, when the results declared in this year are better than the past year, there is no occasion to make any addition in the trading results as has been done by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .35% 1275779 1.85% 6.1 A bare perusal of above chart reveals the figures given therein, which is not disputed by parties, one can easily make out the gross profit rate as well as the net profit rate declared during the year 2010-11 are better than the results declared in 2009-10. The law on this issue is almost settled and certain by the following decisions: i) Sri Ram Co Vs. ACIT 316 ITR 139 [Raj] ii) Ghasi Ram Todarmal Vs. ITO 196 ITR 329 iii) Rajendra Prasad Subhash Chand Vs. UOI 237 CTR 382 The ratio decidendi of the above judgments is that in case the assessee shows better results during the year under consideration as compared to past year, then there is no need for making a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal are that the assessee as per the terms and conditions by the government department that some fixed amount has to be deposited in the bank for obtaining work contract and this assessee had to deposit a particular sum in FDRs on which interest income was earned. Such interest income of ₹ 12,84,137/- has been shown by the assessee as its business income but the A.O. has treated it as income from other sources. The ld. CIT(A) has also taken the same view and has confirmed the impugned addition of ₹ 12,84,137/- by treating it as income from other sources. 8. Before us, both the parties have reiterated their arguments taken before the ld. CIT(A). 9. After considering the rival submissions, we have found that addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
