TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts in estimating the sales at Rs. 3.75 crores as against Rs. 5 crores estimated by the AO." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO made addition by observing as under: "1. The assessee was asked to submit month-wise as well as item-wise breakup of purchase and consumption of raw materials, production, sales of finished goods and closing stock, for year under consideration. In response to the query raised, the assessee company, vide submission dated 09.12.2009, has submitted only the month-wise break-up of purchase and sales. 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, vide order sheet entry dated 23.11.2009, the assessee was specifically asked to show cause as to why the sales should not be estimated on the same line of estimation made in earlier years as the assessee has not furnished any stock register, sales register, etc. 3. The above submission of the assessee has duly been considered, but the same is not found convincing. The assessee has disclosed total turnover of Rs. 3,45,32,261/- during the year as ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 4.6. As discussed above, the assessee is not maintaining any item-wise as well as quantity-wise details of purchases, consumption, production, sales, etc. Vide submission dated 09.12.2009, the assessee has expressed its inability to provide the above details. Hence, in absence of records showing complete details of production, consumption, stock, sales, cost working of major items, etc., no proper examination of the-book results shown by-the assessee could be carried out. It is stated that the assessee is intentionally not maintaining the basic details of its business, so as to not permit the AO to arrive at the correct picture of its business. Considering these facts, it is held that the sales disclosed by the assessee is not found acceptable and therefore, I am constrained to estimate the total sales of Rs. 5 crores, by rejecting books of accounts u/s.145A of the IT Act. As regards assessee's contention that the CIT(A) as well as the Hon'ble ITAT had accepted the assessee's contention in this regard and had deleted the addition made on account of estimation of turnover, it is stated that a part of the additions so made have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e GP @ 32% in all the earlier years right from A.Y. 2001-02 to 2006-07. My predecessor restricted the said GP to 31% for A.Y. 2003-04 to A.Y. 2005-06. On facts of the case, I have restricted the G.P. for A.Y.2006-07 at 29%. That since during the year under dispute, the appellant has shown a better GP of 29.65% compared to earlier year, I see no reason for estimation of G.P. Keeping in view the said fact, the A.O. is directed to accept the GP rate of 29.65%. Accordingly, the Ground of Appeal No. 3 stands allowed 5. The DR supported the order of the AO. 6. The AR submitted that in the earlier Asstt.Years 2001-02 and 2003-04, materials were found during the course of search, which showed that the assessee has suppressed its turnover, and therefore, the turnover of the assessee was estimated by the AO. In the present year in appeal, there is no such material for estimating sales of the assessee. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record. In the instant case, the assessee has shown sales at Rs. 3,45,32,261/-in its return of income. The AO after rejecting the book results of the assessee estimated its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the order of the AO on this issue, and thus, this ground of the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and that of the assessee is dismissed. 11. The Ground no.2 of the appeal of the assessee is as under: "2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,24,270/- on account of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the At on account of non-deduction of TDS on the payment made for packing material to two parties by mechanically following the decision taken by him in the case of the appellant in A.Y.2006-07 without independent consideration and appreciation of the facts and legal position. In view of facts and submissions filed coupled with legal position, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,24,2760/- requires to be deleted." 12. Brief facts of the case are that the AO disallowed deduction for expenditure incurred on packing material of Rs. 1,24,270/- on the ground that no TDS was deducted from the payment made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18,602/- requires to be deleted." 17. Brief facts of the case are that the AO disallowed Rs. 18,602/- on account of employees' contribution to PF as the same were not deposited within the stipulated date as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and 2(24)(x) of the Act. 18. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 19. Before us, the AR of the assessee submitted that the issue now stands covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) wherein it was held that employees' contribution to provident fund and/or state insurance fund not credited by the assessee to the accounts of the employees in relevant funds within the due dates as specified in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the amounts are not deductible. Respectfully following the above decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee. 20. The ground no.2 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in adopting GP rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 5.3. Accordingly, the gross profit of the assessee at the enhanced sale of Rs. 5 crores 32% is worked out at Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. As against this, the assessee has shown gross profit of Rs. 1,02,38,309/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 57,61,691/- is made to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealing the particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 22. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the AO has consistently estimated the GP at 32% in all the earlier years starting from Asstt.Year 2001-02 to 2006-07. He observed that his predecessor restricted the said GP to 31% for A.Y.2003-04 to 2005-06. He observed that on the facts of the case, he had restricted the GP for A.Y.2006-07 at 29%. Since during the year under consideration, the assessee had shown better GP at 29.65% compared to earlier years, he held that there was no reason for estimation of GP, hence, the CIT(A) directed the AO to accept GP rate at 29.65% in instead of 32% estimated by the AO. 23. The DR relied on the order of the AO, whereas, the AR of the assessee submitted that in A.Y.2006-07, the Tribunal in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o depreciation is allowable. 32. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that identical issue arose in earlier years, and following the decision of his predecessor as well as himself in assessee's own case for earlier Asstt.Year 2004-05 to 2006- 07, directed the AO to allow depreciation. 33. The DR relied on the order of the AO. 34. We find that the finding of the CIT(A) in allowing depreciation on vehicles purchased in the name of director was confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal in the Asstt.Year 2006-07 in ITA No.1794/Ahd/2010 and Co No.188/Ahd/2010 vide order dated 19.4.2013. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 35. The ground no.5 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,21,432/- out of expenses u/s.40A(3)." 36. Brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that the assessee has made cash payment for various bills aggregating to Rs. 6,07,164/- to Torrent Power AEC Ltd. which was in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. Since the assessee had not furnished any explanation, he dis....