ITAT partially allows appeal, rejects additions due to discrepancy in GP rate. Unauthorized survey under s. 133A leads to deletion of Rs. 1,00,926. The ITAT allowed the appeal in part, disallowing additions based on a discrepancy in the GP rate applied by the AO and CIT(A). The ITAT deemed the survey ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
ITAT partially allows appeal, rejects additions due to discrepancy in GP rate. Unauthorized survey under s. 133A leads to deletion of Rs. 1,00,926.
The ITAT allowed the appeal in part, disallowing additions based on a discrepancy in the GP rate applied by the AO and CIT(A). The ITAT deemed the survey conducted by the Inspector of the IT Department under s. 133A as unauthorized, resulting in the deletion of an addition amounting to Rs. 1,00,926. The issue of charging interest was briefly addressed as mandatory and consequential without further elaboration.
Issues Involved: 1. Discrepancy in GP rate applied by AO and CIT(A). 2. Legality of survey conducted by Inspector of IT Department under s. 133A. 3. Charging of interest.
Analysis: Discrepancy in GP rate: The appellant derived income from excavation of marble blocks and job works of sawing for third parties. The AO applied a GP rate of 20%, making additions under various heads. The CIT(A) reduced the GP rate to 18% considering fluctuating rates in the business. The appellant contested this discrepancy. The ITAT noted the GP rate history and opined that without a specific base, the GP rate cannot be uniform. Upholding the appellant's declared GP rate of 16%, the addition was disallowed.
Legality of survey conducted: The appellant raised a legal ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Inspector of the IT Department to conduct the survey under s. 133A. Citing precedents, the appellant argued the survey was illegal. The ITAT agreed, deeming the survey conducted by the Inspector as unauthorized. Consequently, the addition made based on the survey was deleted, amounting to Rs. 1,00,926.
Charging of interest: The judgment briefly mentions the issue of charging interest as mandatory and consequential, without delving into further details.
In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal in part, addressing the discrepancies in the GP rate applied, declaring the survey conducted by the Inspector as illegal, and briefly mentioning the charging of interest as mandatory.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
