TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable 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 affirm. In the result the ground No. 1 2 of the appeal is dismissed. - ITA No.3155 to 3162/AHD/2016, ITA No.3000/AHD/2016, ITA No.3009/AHD/2016, ITA No.450/SRT/2018, ITA No.451/SRT/2018, ITA No.452/SRT/2018 And ITA No.453/SRT/2018 - - - Dated:- 24-12-2021 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Priyavrat Gupta CA For the Revenue : Shri H.P.Meena CIT-DR with Mrs. Anupama Singla Sr. DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These group of 14 appeals by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispatched. The AO recorded that assessee has not furnished details to prove the genuineness of business carried out by them nor the expenses incurred for such business. The AO noted that in the line of Textile Business, the Gross Profit Ratio ranges from 2% to 5%. Since the assessee failed to furnish the books of accounts of the others details. The AO was of the view that he is unable to find out the opening or closing stock available in the balance sheet and in the profit and loss account. The AO invoked the provision of section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the books of accounts in absence of basic details. The AO in absence of details estimated 3% of profit on total turnover and thereby made addition of ₹ 95,03,809/- [being 3% of ₹ 31,67,93,643/-]. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed its detailed submission as recorded in para 5 of the impugned order. The assessee in its submission stated that assessee is a Private Limited company and regularly assessed to tax. The accounts of assessee are audited each year as well as for current assessment year. Purchasing and sale has been duly accounted. The auditors have not made any qualification in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the assessee has not filed even a single piece of documents to substantiate their contention. The assessee neither filed documentary evidence in the form of audited balance sheet, profit and loss account, computation of income, details of purchases, sales or any other evidence. No evidence was filed either before AO or before ld CIT(A). The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee was given substantial in restricting the addition to 1% of sales deserve no further relief. 8. We have considered the rival submission of parties and have gone through the orders of Lower Authorities carefully. We find that the assessee vide application dated 31.08.2018 has raised additional ground of appeal, wherein, ground no.3 and 4 has raised the plea that assessment order is passed without affording proper opportunity and that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing details and evidence during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. We find that during the hearing of appeal, no submission was made by the assessee either for admitting the additional ground of appeal or in support of additional ground of appeal, therefore, additional ground of appeal ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the veracity of the transactions. In associated concern, no physical transfer goods takes place. The expenses recorded are normal and lower side and the turnover shown is large, thus, under these circumstances, the profit cannot be estimated at normal market rate. The ld.CIT(A), considering the fact of the case held that in his opinion, 1% of addition of total turnover would be fair and reasonable, to meet the end of justice and restricted the addition to that extent only. 11. We find that the present appeal was filed on 30.11.2016. The case was fixed for hearing for the first time on 22.03.2018. The ld.AR of the assessee is seeking dates from 22.03.2018 on one ground or other. Not a single piece of evidence is filed before this Tribunal. Though in additional grounds of appeal the assessee raised plea that no proper opportunity was given and that the assessee was prevented from producing details and evidences during the assessment, despite taking such plea no paper book or evidence or books of account is filed before Tribunal. We are conscious of the facts that those corresponding additional ground is already rejected. The assessee despite pendency of appeal for more than fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is also dismissed with similar observations. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 16. The assessee in ITA No.3158/AHD/2016 ( Revax Tradex Pvt Ltd) 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 that its gross profit of 0.06%, 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. 17. 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. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 19. The assessee in ITA No.3161/AHD/2016 (Omkar Cultivation) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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. 26. 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. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 28. The assessee in ITA No.3159/AHD/2016 (Everlong Trading Pvt Ltd.) 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 that its gross profit of 0.07%, as shown by the audited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he principles of consistency, this appeal is also dismissed with similar observations. 36. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 37. The Revenue in Cross Appeal in ITA No.3000/AHD/2016 (Jyoti Harvesting) 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 without considering the fact that the addition on account of gross profit was made by applying the provisions of section 145(3), as no documentary evidences with regard to purchases, sales and expenses were filed by the assessee, despite sufficient opportunities granted to the assessee. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the learned CIT (A) be set aside and that the order of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any grounds during the course of appeal proceedings. 38. Considering the facts that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove 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. 41. 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. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 43. The assessee in ITA No.451/SRT/2018 ( Systematic Trading) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cient 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 0.069% as declared by the appellant on a total turnover of ₹ 17,86,55,988 during the year under consideration as per its audited accounts and arbitrarily estimating the same at 3% of total turnover without any basis and making an addition of ₹ 53,59,680/-. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
