TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting additional evidences while calculating the suppressed income, without giving the AO an opportunity to offer his comments, in contravention of provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules." 3. The learned DR has relied on the order of the AO. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no violation of Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules in this case. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that no violation of the provision of Rule 46A could be shown by the Revenue, and accordingly, the ground no.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. The identical ground no.2 of the appeal of the Revenue is as under: "2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gher percentage of GP at 61.27% for A.Y.2010- 2001 and 42% for A.Y.2009-2010. She has relied on the order of the CIT(A). She also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in ITO Vs. M/s.Swastik Engineering Stores, ITA No.1907/Ahd/2007 order dated 15th July, 2011, and the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs President Industries, 258 ITR 654 and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja, 302 ITR 63, in support of submissions. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) has passed a well considered speaking order on the issue. We find that the CIT(A) has applied the GP rate as declared by the assessee on ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of the CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed and the ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. The identical ground no.3 of the appeal of the Revenue is as under: "3. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs.52,378/- out of total addition of Rs.73,1294/- for A.Y.2008-2009, addition of Rs.7,90,215/- out of total addition of Rs.11,12,040/- for A.Y.2009-2010 and addition of Rs.15,02,018/- out of total addition of Rs.20,70,036/- for A.Y.2010-2011" 8. We have heard the parties. We find that this ground of the appeal of the Revenue is covered by the Ground no.2 of the Revenue in all these three appeals, and accordingly, needs no separate adjudication. CO Nos.46, 47 and 48/Ahd/2013 (Assessee's CO) 9. The learn....