9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sad for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. In all appeals, the assessee's have raised certain common grounds of appeal; facts in all cases are almost similar, except variation of addition on account of Gross Profit on the basis of turnover. Therefore, all appeals were clubbed, heard and are decided by consolidated order. For appreciation of facts, the facts in ITA No.3156/AHD/2016 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad ["CIT(A)"], on the facts of the case and in law, erred in upholding the addition of 1% of gross profit in appellant's total income. The appellant respectfully submits that its gross profit of 0.08%, as shown by the audited financial statement, is correct and the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or modify and/or alter and/or delete the aforesaid grounds of appeal." 2. The assessee vide application dated 31.08.2018 raised following additional grounds of appeal in ITA No.3156/AHD/2016 for the A.Y. 2013-14: "Additional Ground: Ground 3: "That assessment order was passed without affordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... margin is reduced. The AO should have accepted the income declared by the assessee without rejecting the books of accounts. The AO made ad hoc addition @ 3% of sales. In without prejudice submission, the assessee contended that in similar circumstances, in case of Hari Om Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. ld.CIT(A) considered the income of that assessee and restricted the addition to the extent of 0.5% of sales. Further, in case of Jalaram Cultivation Pvt. Ltd., the ld.CIT(A)-Valsad restricted the income of that assessee to 1.00 % of turnover. The turnover of assessee is of Rs. 31.68 crore and has shown Gross Profit Ratio of 0.081% against GP of 0.09% in previous year. 5. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the submission of assessee, held that before him the assessee submitted that in case of Hari Om Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., the ld.CIT(A) has upheld the estimated addition of Gross Profit @ 0.5% against 3% estimated by the AO. Similarly, in case of Jalaram Cultivation Pvt. Ltd., the ld. CIT(A) estimated Gross profit @1% against Gross Profit to 3% by the AO. The assessee has total turnover of Rs. 31.67 crore and has declared Gross Profit at 0.08%. The AO made addition of Rs. 95,03,809/- witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition to the extent of 1.00 % of Gross Profit. We find that the AO during the assessment issued a number of show cause notices to produce the books of accounts and the allied evidences. The AO also conducted enquiries by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act calling complete details from the parties from whom the assessee made purchases. In response to such notices, those companies/parties submitted only ledger accounts, no details where furnished with regard to payments of such purchases. Thus, the AO concluded that purchases shown by assessee are not verifiable. The assessee was asked to produce the complete details of month wise purchases, sale and quantity, value, bills, vouchers of expenses and stock statement. The assessee was also asked to produce the lorry receipt no. and truck/vehicle through which the goods were delivered. The AO noted that despite being number of opportunities, no details were furnished. No books of accounts was produced by the assessee. The AO recorded that in the similar business, the other assessee's in line of textile trading, Gross Profit (GP) Ratio ranges from 2% to 5%. The AO, accordingly, noted that he had no option, except to reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able companies cases who are engaged in similar business. The ld.AR simply made is submission that addition restricted by the ld. CIT(A) is on higher side and concluded his submissions in a single sentence. We find that even before ld CIT(A), the assessee only submitted that in one of the comparable companies in Hari Om Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., the ld.CIT(A) restricted addition to the extent of 0.5% and in case of Jalaram Cultivation addition was restricted to 1% by the ld.CIT(A). We find that no documentary evidence was furnished before ld CIT(A). In our view the ld. CIT(A), in a very reasonable manner restricted the addition to 1.00 % of total sale/turnover of assessee. Even now neither the copy of order in case of Hari Om Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. nor any other comparable company or the alleged audited accounts of the assessee is placed. At the addition cost of repetition, we may note that this appeal pending appeal for more than five years, the assessee failed to bring any evidence on record to substantiate their plea that their books result should be accepted. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A), which we affir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the addition of 1% of gross profit in appellant's total income. The appellant respectfully submits audited financial statement, is correct and the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or modify and/or alter and/or delete the aforesaid grounds of appeal." 20. As recorded above the assessee in the facts in this appeal is almost same and the assessee has raised identical /similar grounds of appeal as raised in ITA No. 3156/AHD/2016, which we have already dismissed. Therefore, following the principles of consistency, this appeal is also dismissed with similar observations. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 22. The Revenue in its Cross Appeal in ITA No.3009/AHD/2016(Omkar Cultivation) for the A.Y. 2013-14 has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting relief to the assessee in reducing the gross profit rate at 1% as against at 3% estimated by the AO, without considering the facts and of the case in its entirety. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the facts in this appeal is almost same and the assessee has raised identical /similar grounds of appeal as raised in ITA No. 3156/AHD/2016, which we have already dismissed. Therefore, following the principles of consistency, this appeal is also dismissed with similar observations. 30. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 31. The assessee in ITA No.3160/AHD/2016 ( Siddhi Cultivation) for the A.Y. 2013-14 has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad ["CIT(A)"], on the facts of the case and in law, erred in upholding the addition of 1% of gross profit in appellant's total income. The appellant respectfully submits audited financial statement, is correct and the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or modify and/or alter and/or delete the aforesaid grounds of appeal." 32. As recorded above the assessee in the facts in this appeal is almost same and the assessee has raised identical /similar grounds of appeal as raised in ITA No. 3156/AHD/2016, which we have already dismissed. Therefore, following the principles of consistency, this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y. 2014-15 has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 29.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") and the additions/disallowances made therein are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") have grossly erred on facts and in law in passing the ex-parte orders without giving a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the additions/disallowances made therein. 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the GP ratio of 0.09% as declared by the appellant on a total turnover of Rs. 187,81,05018 lacs during the year under consideration as per its audited accounts and arbitrarily estimating the same at 3% without any basis and making an addition of Rs. 5,63,43,150/-. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) Valsad on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jecting the GP ratio of 0.052% as declared by the appellant on a total turnover of Rs. 36,71,64,247 during the year under consideration as per its audited accounts and arbitrarily estimating the same at 3% on total turnover without any basis and making an addition of Rs. 1,10,14,927/- 5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO and CIT(A) have failed to properly construe and judiciously interpret the evidence filed and materials available on record, hence the addition/disallowance made is uncalled for. 6. That the addition/disallowance made are illegal, unjust and bad in law and are based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record and the same are highly excessive. 7. That interest U/s 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been wrongly and illegally charged and has been wrongly worked out. 8. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 44. As recorded above the assessee in the facts in this appeal is almost same and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal is almost same and the assessee has raised identical /similar grounds of appeal as raised in ITA No. 3156/AHD/2016, which we have already dismissed. Therefore, following the principles of consistency, this appeal is also dismissed with similar observations. 48. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 49. The assessee in ITA No.453/SRT/2018 (Eremurus Trading Pvt Ltd) for the A.Y. 2014-15 has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 29.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") and the additions/disallowances made therein are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") have grossly erred on facts and in law in passing the ex-parte orders without giving a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the additions/disallowances made therein. 4. That, on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
