9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the facts of the case as well as law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that AO had estimated the income @ 8% in the absence of necessary evidence and records produced by the assessee? (ii) Whether in the facts of the case as well as law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in not following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the assessee's own group case in ITA Nos. 707 to 710/Rjt/2014 dated 29.05.2015 which upheld the estimation of profit @ 8%. 3. Facts in brief indicate that on a return of income filed by the assessee, amongst other things the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee had claimed high ratio of refund to TDS and had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been gone through. It was observed from the assessment order that the AO issued show cause notice on 02.11.2015 calling for certain details, which were originally called for from the assessee in the notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.07.2015, but the assessee failed to submit the same. The details were related to the method of working of WIP and closing stock, construction activities and other expenses. He also called for details of default in depositing PF to the accounts of the employees, proof of new additions made to the fixed assets, copy of bank statements, cost of material expenses etc with supporting evidence. Explanation was also called for about receipt of interest from J&K Bank Ltd, high ratio. of refund from TDS, large other expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse findings from the details called for, cross verifications conducted and the books of accounts. Therefore, after taking into accounts\ all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the AO ignored the details furnished by the assessee with his letters dated 04.11.2015 and 06.11.2015 in the assessment proceedings, rejected books of accounts without any basis and estimated income @ 8% merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. These details were available on record. In light of the above, therefore, the grounds of appeal are allowed." 4.1 The Tribunal in appeal agreed with the reasonings of the CIT(A) and held as under: "7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
